Summary
To execute a money decree of about Rs. 2.6 lakhs arising from an LPG supply agreement, the executing court in Damoh auctioned property on 18 October 2011; the purchaser deposited 25 per cent only on 3 November and the balance on 4 November. The objector, which had bought the property from the judgment debtor by registered deed in 1999, applied under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC; the executing court rejected the objection, the appellate court remanded, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court restored the rejection. The Supreme Court allowed the objector's appeal: the requirements of Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 to deposit 25 per cent immediately and the balance within fifteen days are mandatory and non-compliance makes the sale a nullity, as held in Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Rosali V.; the 1999 injunction concerned the judgment debtor's firm, not this property, which it no longer owned when auctioned.
Issues
- Whether a court auction sale is vitiated where the purchaser did not deposit 25 per cent of the price immediately on being declared purchaser and did not pay the balance within fifteen days as required by Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 CPC.
- Whether property purchased from the judgment debtor by registered sale deed twelve years before the auction, and not covered by the suit or the interim injunction, could be sold in execution.
Provisions considered
- Order XXI Rules 64, 84, 85, 86 and 90, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The purchaser must deposit 25 per cent immediately after being declared purchaser and pay the full price before the court closes on the fifteenth day; following Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Rosali V., these provisions are mandatory and on non-compliance there is no sale at all, the court being bound to re-sell, so the deposits on 03.11.2011 and 04.11.2011 after an auction on 18.10.2011 vitiated the sale. (¶¶ 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3)
Held
- The suit of 1998 concerned specific performance of an LPG agreement and the status quo order of 18.05.1999 restrained transfer of the judgment debtor's firm, not the property, which the appellant purchased on 31.08.1999 before the decree of 30.09.1999; the High Court erred in holding the purchase to be in breach of the injunction, and since the judgment debtor no longer owned the property in 2011 it could not be put to auction, so the executing court erred in overruling the objection. (¶¶ 7.1, 7.2, 9)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment dated 29.04.2016 in WP No. 3342 of 2015 and the executing court's order dated 23.01.2013 overruling the objection quashed and set aside; order of the Additional District Judge, Damoh in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2013 restored; the auction purchaser at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited with the executing court.