GIRRAJ PRASAD Vs. BADRI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by an auction purchaser against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Ganganagar dated 7. 5. 55.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are, that Badrilal, non-petitioner No. 2, had a decree against non-petitioner No. 2 Chouthi Lal. In execution of the said decree, immovable property belonging to non-petitioner No. 2 was auctioned by the executing court. THE highest bid being that of the petitioner for Rs. 10,000/- the sale was knocked down on 4. 1. 1950 in his favour. THE petitioner deposited Rs. 2500/- on the same day. On 16. 1. 50, he offered to deposit the remaining amount of Rs 7500/- in the court and presented an application for that purpose. During the interval between 4. 1. 50 and 16. 1. 50 the judgment-debtor had approached the High Court and obtained an order for staying the confirmation of the sale. THE executing court thought that because of the said order of the High Court it could not accept the money tendered by the auction-purchaser and therefore it passed an order saying that the money could not be accepted and that the auction purchaser would be informed after another order is received from the High Court. It appears that the judgment-debtor's appeal was eventually dismissed by the High Court and so when the case went back to the executing court, it issued a notice to the petitioner on 13. 11. 54 calling upon him to deposit the remaining purchase money by the 10th of December, 1954. On 10th December, 1954, the petitioner presented an application requesting the executing court to allow him one month's time for depositing the money. On 12. 1. 55, he presented another application for giving him 2 months further extension for depositing the money. Notice of this application was given to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor. THEreafter, on 7. 5. 55 it was decided by the executing court that the period for depositing the money could not be extended and that the sale could not be confirmed in favour of the auction-purchaser on account of his failure to deposit Rs. 7500/ -. THE court ordered re-sale of the property and further observed that if there would be any deficiency in the amount of the purchase money on a re-sale, then the one-fourth amount of Rs. 2500/- deposited by the auction-purchaser would be forfeited to that extent. It is against this order that the present application has been filed.