9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 1978 for that purpose. The auction sale was to be held within the Court precincts as before. Once again, the result was disappointing inasmuch as notwithstanding the fact that the sale proceedings were continued day to day up to 29-9-1978 under orders of the Court, there was no bidder to advance the proceedings to a take-off stage. Undeterred, the proceedings were pressed on with the result that on 30-9-1978, the official bid of ₹ 25,000/- was raised to Rupees. 40,000/- by the decree-holder. Not satisfied, the Court ordered the proceedings to continue working day to working day as before. 2. The results started showing when on 4-10-1978, the highest bid recorded was ₹ 44,000/-; on 5-10-1978 it was ₹ 51,000/-; and on 7-10-1978 it reached ₹ 52,000/-. There was again a short lull but on 12-10-1978, a prospective purchaser came forward to throw his weight in the auction sale and that too for the first time. He was respondent No. 2 Govind Singh and it is he who took it to the pinnacle of ₹ 72,000/- by 28-10-1978. Hoping against hope, however, the sale was ordered to be continued till 15-11-1978 of which the net result was only this : the status ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-compliance of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 84 (1), Civil P. C. The application was dismissed on 30-1-1979 vide the impugned order holding that the one-fourth of the amount of his purchase money has been deposited by the auction-purchaser as required by law explaining that after all it takes some time to convey to the highest bidder that he has been declared as purchaser at the sale and that the term immediately occurring in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 84 of Order XXI, Civil P. C. means 'without delay'. It is this interpretation of the term in the above context that alone has been called in question in this appeal by the judgment-debtor who is pressing ior setting aside the sale relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Manilal v. Sayed Ahmed, (AIR 1954 SC 349). 6. The above-mentioned case is authority for the proposition that the provisions of the rules requiring the deposit of 25 per cent of the purchase-money immediately, on the person being declared as a purchaser and the payment of the balance within 15 days of the sale are mandatory and upon non-compliance with these provisions, there is no sale at all. The rules do not contemplate that there can be any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As may be seen, the obligation cast on the purchaser to pay immediately a deposit of 25 per cent of the amount of his purchase-money, arises only after he is declared to be the purchaser. As the things are here, such a declaration could not have been made by the officer conducting the sale on his own authority; nor did he make it. That apart, respondent No. 2 Govind Singh was not present on the spot or in the Court on 22-11-1978, when, as usual, at the end of the day, the matter was referred to the Court for further orders as the bid had remained static throughout the interval between 28-10-1978 and 22-11-1978 at ₹ 72,000/- in his name. Nevertheless, the Court accepted his bid and prepared itself to face the problem of making the requisite declaration. It was to be made on the spot in the presence of the successful bidder by the officer conducting the sale. Since this was impossible to achieve, the Court, albeit mercifully at the same time, directed the officer concerned to declare respondent No. 2 Govind Singh as purchaser at the sale and proceed to manage the deposit of 25 per cent of the purchase money by him. That was duly done vide noticed dated 23-11-1978. It is not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing day was pitiably short for even tendering the deposit. That being so, I find it exceedingly difficult to persuade myself to agree to the proposition that the term immediately must be under stood to mean as excluding all mesne time and as such, the deposit admittedly made on 24-11-1978 must be dismissed as invalid rendering the entire sale proceedings as a nullity (so as 1o place the auction purchaser in the position of a defaulter). And all this because, honest to his word, as promptly as could be said to a fault, and despite all odds, he willingly co-operated with the Court in making good its mistake in springing a surprise on him which was sure to prove a bolt from the blue. The situation admits of an apt reference to the following observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in The Authorised Officer, Thanjavur v. S. Naganatha Ayyar, (AIR 1979 SC 1487 at p. 1493). To be truly a 'Portia man' the lawyer should follow the way in which Portia avoided an unjust decree. Not to let the words of the deed be the masters: but so construe them -- adapt them as the occasion demands -- so as to do what justice and equity require. This is how she turned the tables on Shylock : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
