1979 (11) TMI 273 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of auction sale proceedings.
2. Interpretation of the term "immediately" under Order 21 Rule 84(1) Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
3. Compliance with mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 84(1) CPC.
4. Impact of local amendments to Rule 65 and Rule 85 CPC on the auction sale process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Auction Sale Proceedings:
The judgment-debtor appealed against the auction sale of their house property, arguing that the sale was invalid due to non-compliance with Order 21 Rule 84(1) CPC. The property was initially put to sale multiple times, but no satisfactory bids were received. Eventually, the highest bid of Rs. 72,000 by respondent No. 2 was accepted by the Court on 22-11-1978, despite his absence during the declaration.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Immediately":
The core issue revolved around the interpretation of "immediately" in Order 21 Rule 84(1) CPC, which mandates that the purchaser must deposit 25% of the purchase money immediately after being declared the purchaser. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Manilal v. Sayed Ahmed, which held that non-compliance with these provisions renders the sale a nullity. However, the Court noted that the exact meaning of "immediately" was not determined in the Manilal case.

3. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions of Order 21 Rule 84(1) CPC:
The Court acknowledged that the term "immediately" presupposes the presence of the successful bidder and the authority of the officer conducting the sale to declare the purchaser. In this case, due to local amendments, the highest bid could only be accepted by the Court, and the officer could not declare the highest bidder without the Court's leave. Consequently, respondent No. 2 was informed of his successful bid on 23-11-1978 and deposited the required 25% on 24-11-1978.

4. Impact of Local Amendments to Rule 65 and Rule 85 CPC:
The local amendments to Rule 65 and Rule 85 CPC influenced the interpretation of "immediately." The amendments required the highest bid to be accepted by the Court and allowed for certain procedural delays. The Court held that these amendments must be considered when interpreting "immediately," allowing for a reasonable time to comply with the deposit requirement.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the deposit made by respondent No. 2 on 24-11-1978 was in accordance with the law, given the procedural delays and local amendments. The term "immediately" was interpreted to mean "within a reasonable time" under the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, and the auction sale was upheld as valid. The costs of the appeal were to be borne by the appellant, with a hearing fee of Rs. 200.