MATRANI DEVI Vs. CHHATHU PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the decree-holders auction-purchasers and it is directed against an order passed on the 19th May, 1969, as a result of which a sale, in effect, held on the 11th April, 1969 is set aside, although no formal order has vet been passed. The last part of the order is rather vague, which states that the decree-holders may go to the High Court if they desire to have the order for setting aside the sale to be stayed. The relevant facts are as follows. A sale had been held on the 11th April, 1969, and 12th May was fixed for confirmation, 11th May being a Sunday. On the 12th May a judgment-debtor or the judgment-debtors filed a petition, praying that challan for depositing the dues with costs be passed, but a copy of the petition had not been served on the other side and the challans were blank. The order of the Court was that the amount must be deposited at once and the challans produced on 16th May, otherwise the sale will be confirmed. On the 16th May the judgment-debtor or judgment-debtors did not appear. The matter was postponed till the 17th. On the 17th the judgment-debtor or judgment-debtors filed a petition along with challan requesting that a fresh challan may be passed. The order of the court was that the challan may be issued and the amount will have to be deposited to the Nazir by the 19th May positively. On the 19th May the decree-holders filed an objection petition stating that the judgment-debtors had no right to deposit the decretal amount etc., in view of Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and praying that the challan may not be issued and the sale may be confirmed. Upon this the impugned order was passed, on the ground that the provisions of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to the case, or that the Court would pass an order favourable to the judgment-debtors under Section 151 of the Code. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that the order of the Court below is wholly without jurisdiction. It is clear that the judgment-debtors had not complied with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code, within time, and no question of application of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure arose. The provision of law in this case was Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 166 of the old Limitation Act and Article 127 of the new Limitation Act, which are to the same effect with regard to the time limit. It is clear that the judgment-debtors had to deposit the amount required under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure within the time envisaged by the Limitation Act and the Court below had no jurisdiction to enlarge the time. In such circumstances, the impugned order must be and is set aside. The formal order of confirming the sale must now be passed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs of this Court.