BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In execution of the money decree in favour of the decree-holder respondent, the land of the judgment-debtor petitioner, measuring 10 Kanals 45 marlas, was ordered to be sold by the executing Court. As on the earlier dates, fixed for the auction, no person had come forward to give the bid, the respondent was given permission by the executing Court to make a bid and to purchase the land of the petitioner. Thereafter, the auction was held and the respondent made a bid of Rs. 6,000/-. As no other person had come forward to make a bid, the bid of respondent was accepted and the sale was sanctioned by the executing Court by its order dated October 29, 1977. Before the confirmation of the sale, the petitioner made an application under Order XXI rule 89, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), offering to deposit Rs. 6,000/- in the Court. This application was dismissed as not being in accordance with law and the sale was confirmed on December 30, 1977. That order was challenged in appeal but the same was dismissed by the order of the District Judge on April 1, 1978. This order has been challenged in the present revision petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the sale suffered from a number of defects, namely, that the proclamation issued for the purpose did not satisfy the mandatory requirement of Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code, as the requisite details of the property to be sold and the amount of the decree for which the sale was to be held had not been mentioned, that the sale was not conducted by the Court auctioneer as required under the Rules and Orders of the High Court, or by the Collector as provided under Rule 23 framed under Section 141 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. This contention has no substance as the petitioner, after the sale, did not make any objection under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code, regarding any irregularity having been committed in the conduct of the sale.

(3.) It was then contended that if the executing Court found that the offer of the petitioner to make deposit of Rs. 6,000/- was less than the required amount, it was for the executing Court to point out and give an opportunity to the petitioner to make the necessary deposit. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Order XII Rule 92(2) of the Code. However, a perusal of the same makes it amply clear that only in cases where the amount deposited under Rule 8 is found to be deficient due to some clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor, he can be allowed to make good the deficiency. In the present case, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the decree was for Rs. 12,000/- comprising of the principal and interest including the costs. The property was sought to be sold for Rs. 11,357.00. In view of this, the offer by the petitioner to deposit only Rs. 6,000/- did not comply with the requirement of Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code. Even over and above the decretal amount for which the sale had been conducted, the petitioner was required to make a deposit of a sum equal to five per cent, of the purchase money. As his application did not comply with the provisions, it was rightly rejected by the executing Court and the appellate Court also rightly upheld that decision.