9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Setting aside of sale in execution of a decree under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC. Detailed Analysis: Issue: Setting aside of sale under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC The case involved the execution of a decree where the properties of the Petitioner-Judgment Debtor were brought for sale. The Petitioner paid the decretal amount and filed objections for confirmation of sale. The executing Court directed the Petitioner to pay solatium to the Auction Purchaser, who refused to accept it. Subsequently, the Auction Purchaser filed an application for confirmation of sale. The executing Court set aside the sale, closing the execution proceedings. On appeal, the first Appellate Court reversed the decision. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, stating that an objection cannot be treated as an application under Order 21 Rule 89, and the deposit was not made within the prescribed date. The Supreme Court considered whether the setting aside of the sale by the executing Court was correct. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Order 21 Rule 89(1) of CPC, which allows an application to set aside a sale on deposit. The Court highlighted the conditions to be met for setting aside a sale under Rule 89(1) and the follow-up action provided under Rule 92(2) of Order 21. The Court examined various judicial precedents that presented conflicting views on whether a mere deposit of money can be considered an application to set aside a sale. The Court discussed the purpose of Rule 89 of Order 21, emphasizing that it provides a last opportunity for the Judgment Debtor to prevent the sale and save their property from dispossession. The Court clarified that compliance with the conditions of Rule 89 leads to the Court setting aside the sale under Rule 92(2). The Court noted that the Rule does not mandate a specific form of application and even a memo with a prayer for setting aside the sale is deemed sufficient compliance. In the present case, the Petitioner-Judgment Debtor paid the decree amount to the Decree Holder within the stipulated period and filed objections for setting aside the sale. The Court observed that the payment fulfilled the requirements under Rule 89(1)(b) and the subsequent deposit of solatium with the Court met the second requirement under Rule 89(1)(a). The Court emphasized that the objection could be treated as an application to set aside the sale, and the executing Court's decision was in line with the law. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the first Appellate Court, and restoring the order of the executing Court to close the execution proceedings. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Supreme Court's decision regarding the setting aside of a sale in execution of a decree under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC.
|
