1975 (5) TMI 93 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Scope of the word "forthwith" in Order XXI, Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Setting aside a re-sale under Order XXI, Rule 90 based on irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale.

In this case, the revision petition pertains to an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 for setting aside a re-sale and involves interpreting the term "forthwith" in Order XXI, Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts reveal that after an initial failed sale of immovable property due to the purchaser's failure to deposit the required amount, a re-sale was conducted on the same day. The decree-holder was the only bidder and acquired the property for an amount equal to the decretal amount. Subsequently, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, alleging irregularity or fraud in the sale process. The executing Court and the Appellate Judge both found no irregularity in conducting the re-sale on the same day. The petitioner argued that the re-sale held on the same day was illegal and should have been delayed to allow other bidders to participate.

The main contention revolves around the interpretation of the term "forthwith" in Order XXI, Rule 84 (1). The petitioner relied on precedents where the term was understood to mean "within a reasonable time." However, the Court emphasized that the term "forthwith" should be construed in context and may vary depending on the circumstances of each case. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that a re-sale immediately following an abortive sale on the same day could be justified if circumstances permit, without necessitating a fresh sale proclamation. The Court stressed the need to avoid unnecessary delays while ensuring fairness in the sale process.

Regarding the alleged irregularity in the sale, the petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence to support the claim. The petitioner's argument that the highest bid at the initial sale was not genuine, as it was made by a party with no real interest in purchasing the property, was dismissed by the Court. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings that there was no material irregularity in conducting the sale, thereby rejecting the petitioner's plea to set aside the sale.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the re-sale conducted on the same day was not illegal and upholding the lower courts' decisions. The Court declined to award costs in this matter, concluding the judgment.