KANHAIYALAL Vs. SANSMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Kanhaiyalal decree-holder against the order of the Civil Judge Sojat, setting: aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 84 on the ground that the decree-holder auction purchaser had not deposited 25 per cent, of the purchase money as required by Order 21, Rule 84 (1), C. P. C.

(2.) The facts are that certain property was ordered to be sold and 25-5-1953, was fixed for the sale. On that day, the decree-holder applied to the executing court for permission to bid at the auction, and also prayed that the amount realized by sale be set-off towards his decree, the court passed an order on this application in the following terms:, "The decree-holder is permitted to bid at the sale". Nothing was said about the other prayer made by the decree-holder namely that the purchase money be set-off towards his decree.

(3.) The sale took place on the 25th of May, and the decree-holder's" bid was the highest. The sale was apparently knocked down in his favour, but he did not deposit 25 per cent, of the purchase-money as required by Rule 84 (1) of Order 21, C. P. C. Thereafter, certain objections were made by the judgment-debtor on 29-5-1953. It Is not necessary to refer in detail to those objections. It is enough to say that when the matter came before the court on 17-11-1953, it set aside the sale on the ground that the decree-holder auction-purchaser had not deposited 25 per cent, of the purchase-money within time, ft did not decide any of the objections raised in the application of 29-5-1953, but fixed 25-1-1954 for hearing those objections. Thereafter there was an appeal to this Court, and the objections of 29-5-1953, are, we understand, sli.Il undisposed of.