BALWANT RAI Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of the unfortunate cases in which statutory bodies recklessly ignored the interest of the institution. The land of the decree-holder was taken and compensation amounting to Rs. 86,000/- was awarded to the decree-holder. However, the Improvement Trust did not pay the compensation. The decree-holder took out the execution. Still the Trust was not moved. Keeping in view the attitude of the judgment-debtor-Improvement Trust towards the payment of compensation to the decree-holder, the property of the Improvement Trust was put to auction on 5-9-1987 in terms of Order 21 rule 92(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is only when the plots have been auctioned that the Improvement Trust's Office moved. The plots were auctioned on 5-9-1987 for Rs. 86,000/-. The petitioner-auction purchaser deposited the amount. It is at this stage that the judgment-debtor-Improvement Trust on 26.9.1987 made an application for deposit of the decretal amount amounting to Rs. 84,868.15 as calculated by the Accountant of the Improvement Trust. Notice of the application for deposit was issued for 3.10,1987, on which date the Court allowed the deficient amount to be deposited upto 20th of October, 1987.

(2.) The auction purchaser on 6-10-1987 moved an application for confirmation of sale, inter laia, contending that the amount has been deposited in terms of Order 21 rule 89 inasmuch as the amount deposited is deficient by 5% of the auction money as well as the expenses of auction and consequently, the executing Court is bound to confirm the sale. The executing Court found that the deposit was deficient and confirmed the sale.

(3.) However, the lower appellate Court accepted the appeal and found that in view of the amended provisions of Order 21 rule 92(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amended vide Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976), a power has been conferred on the Court to extend the period for deposit in cases where the amount deposited under rule 89 is found to be deficient owing to any clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor. It is not disputed that the judgment debtor is a corporate body and the amount has been deposited as calculated by the Accountant of the said department. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the mistake in calculation was not bona fide. There is again no dispute that amount due on account of expenses regarding proclamation for sale etc. was still to be assessed and hence the same has not been deposited as yet though there is no dispute that it is the judgment-debtor's liability. The lower appellate Court set aside the auction.