http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BASAVANTAPPA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GANGADHAR NARAYAN DHARWADKAR & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/09/1986

BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR   53            1986 SCR  (3) 734  1986 SCC  (4) 273        JT 1986   443  1986 SCALE  (2)431  CITATOR INFO :  O          1990 SC 933  (3,16)

ACT:      Civil Procedure Code, 1908-order 21 Rule 92(2)- Sale in execution of decree-Setting aside of-Application and deposit of amount-Period of limitation-Amendment-Necessity for.      Limitation  Act,   1963-Article   127-Application   for setting aside  sale-Limitation  period-Sixty  days-Necessity for amendment of order 21 Rule 92(2) CPC.

HEADNOTE:      The auction  of the  property of judgment-debtor no. 1, in execution  of a  money decree, was held on July 26, 1985. The  highest  bid  of  Rs.22,000  offered  by  the  auction- purchaser was  accepted. The  case for  confirmation of sale was  fixed  on  September  30,  1985.  In  the  mean  while, judgment-debtor no. l deposited the bid amount on August 29, 1985 together with an application under O,XXI,r.90 read with s. 151  of the  Civil Procedure  Code for  setting aside the sale. On  September 6,  1985, he  made  another  application under O.XXI  r. 89  read with  s. 151 of the Code and made a deposit of the balance amount.      The objection  raised by the auction-purchaser that the deposit required  by r.  89 not  having been  made within 30 days of  the date of the sale as required by r. 92(2) of the Code, the  sale was liable to be con firmed under sub-r. (1) thereof, was  overruled by  the Principal Munsif. This order was upheld by the High Court.      Dismissing the SLP, this Court, ^      HELD: 1.  Under O.XXI, r. 89 as it now exists, both the application and  the deposit  must be made within 30 days of the sale.  The failure  to make such deposit within the time allowed at  once attracts  the consequences  set-forth under sub-r. (2) of r. 92. [737 A-B]      2. The  limitation prescribed  for an application under O.XXI, r. 735 89 was  30 days from the date of sale under Schedule I, Art. 166 of the Limitation Act, 1908, now replaced by Art. 127 of the Limitation  Act, 1963.  Art. 127 has now been amended by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Act 104  of 1976  and  the  words  ’sixty  days’  have  been substituted for the words ’thirty days’. [736 F-G]      3. As a result of this amendment, the limitation for an application to  set aside  a sale in execution of the decree including any  such application  by a  judgment-debtor under O.XXI, r. 89 or r.90 is, therefore, sixty-days now. [736 G]      4. Sub-r.  (2) of  r.  92  of  O.XXI  of  the  Code  is inconsistent with  Art.  127  of  the  Limitation  Act.  The Parliament must  enact the  necessary change  in law  for an appropriate amendment  of sub-r.  (2) of  r. 92 of the Code. [737 A-B]      In the  instant case,  the judgment-debtor no. 1 having deposited the  decretal  amount  together  with  5%  of  the purchase money  and having made the application under O.XXI, r. 89  within sixty  days of the sale i.e. within the period as provided  by Art. 127 of the Limitation Act, the sale was liable to be set aside. [737 G-H]      5. The provision of O.XXI, rr. 89 and 92(2) of the Code of Civil  Procedure and  that of  Art. 127 of the Limitation Act 1963, should receive harmonious construction. [737 F-G]      Thangammal &  Ors. v.  K. Dhanalakshmi & Anr., AIR 1981 Mad. 254, approved.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition No. 8862 of 1986      From the  Judgment and  order dated  26.3.1986  of  the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. 3084 of 1985.      Padmanabha Mahale, K.K. Gupta and Mrs. Leelawati Mahale for the Petitioner.      The order of the Court was delivered by      SEN, J.  In this special leave petition the short point involved is  whether by  reason of  sub-r. (2)  of r.  92 of order XXI  of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the deposit required by r. 89 not having been 736 made  within   thirty  days  from  the  date  of  sale,  the application   made    by   the   judgment-debtor   was   not maintainable. Sub-r.  (2) of r. 92 has been amended by s. 72 of the  Code of  Civil Procedure  (Amendment) Act,  1976  by adding the  words "the deposit required by that rule is made within thirty  days from  the date  of sale",  the following ’’or in  cases where  the amount  deposited under  rule 89.. within such  time as  may be  fixed by the Court" to prevent any controversy  as to  the power of the Court to extend the time to  make good  the deficit.  Unfortunately,  the  words added speak  of the  deficiency owing  to ’any  clerical  or arithmetical mistake’  on the  part of  the  depositor.  The amended r. 92(2) now reads:           "92(2).  Where   such  application   is  made  and           allowed, and  where, in the case of an application           under rule  89, the  deposit required by that rule           is made  within thirty days from the date of sale,           or in  cases where the amount deposited under Rule           89 is  found to be dificient owing to any clerical           or  arithmetical   mistake  on  the  part  of  the           depositor and  such deficiency  has been made good           within such time as may be fixed by the Court, the           Court shall make an order setting aside the sale:                Provided that  no order  shall be made unless           notice of  the application  has been  given to all           persons affected thereby."      The failure  to deposit the amount entails confirmation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

of sale under O.XXI, r. 91(1) and thereupon the sale becomes absolute. The limitation prescribed for an application under O.XXI, r.  89 was  thirty days  from the  date of sale under Schedule I,  Art. 166  of  the  Limitation  Act,  1908,  now replaced by  Art. 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The words "may apply  to have  the sale set aside on his depositing in Court" etc. show that not only the application, but also the deposit, should  be made within thirty days from the date of sale. It is not enough to make the application within thirty days. Nor  is it  enough to  make the  deposit within thirty days. Both  the application  and the  deposit must  be  made within thirty  days from  the date  of sale. Art. 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has now been amended by Act 104 of 1976 and the words ’sixty days’ have now been substituted for the words ’thirty  days’. As  a result  of  the  amendment,  the limitation for  an  application  to  set  aside  a  sale  in execution of  a decree,  including any such application by a judgment-debtor under  O.XXI, r.  89 or  r. 90  is therefore sixty days  now. Such  being the  law, there  is need for an appropriate amendment of sub-r. 737 (2) of  r. 92  of the  Code. Under  O.XXI, r.  89 as  it now exists, both  the application  and the  deposit must be made within thirty  days of  the sale.  The failure  to make such deposit  within  the  time  allowed  at  once  attracts  the consequences set  forth in  sub-r. (2)  of r. 92. This is an unfortunate state  of things  and Parliament  must enact the necessary change in law.      In the  present case,  the auction was held on July 26, 1985. The  decree holder  brought to  sale in execution of a money decree  for Rs.21,948.45p.,  the property of judgment- debtor no.  1 comprised of a house and open site appurtenant thereto.  The  highest  bid  of  Rs.22,500  offered  by  the auction-purchaser was  accepted and the bid was knocked down in his  favour. The  executing  Court  fixed  the  case  for confirmation  of   sale  on   September  30,  1985.  In  the meanwhile, judgment-debtor  no.  1  deposited  Rs.22,000  on August 29,  1985 towards  payment  of  the  decretal  amount together with an application under O.XXI, r. 90 read with s. 151 of  the Code  for setting  aside  the  sale.  Again,  on September 6,  1985 he made another application purporting to be under  O.XXI, r. 89 read with s. 151 of the Code and made a deposit  of  the  balance  amount.  The  auction-purchaser objected to  the entertainment of the application contending inter alia  that the  deposit required  by r.  89 not having been made within thirty days of the date of sale as required by r. 92(2) of the Code, the sale was liable to be confirmed under  sub-r.   (1)  thereof.  It  is  undisputed  that  the judgment-debtor has  deposited the  entire  decretal  amount together with  5% of the purchase money by way of commission to the  petitioner-auction-purchaser. The  Principal Munsif, Dharwar by  his order  dated October  4, 1985  overruled the objection raised  by the  petitioner. A learned Single Judge (Kulkarni, J.) by his judgment dated March 26, 1986 declined to interfere  with the  order of  the learned Munsif setting aside the  sale. The learned Judge relying upon the decision of the  Madras  High  Court  in  Thangammal  &  Ors.  v.  K. Dhanalakshmi &  Anr.,  AIR  1981  Mad.  254  held  that  the provisions of  O.XXI, rr.  89 and 92(2) of the Code and that of  Art.   127  of  the  Limitation  Act  should  receive  a harmonious construction.  In that  view, the  learned  Judge held that  the judgment-debtor  no. 1  having deposited  the decretal amount  together with  5% of the purchase money and having made  the application  under O.XXI, r. 89 of the Code within sixty  days of  the sale  i.e. within  the period  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

provided by  Art. 127  of the  Limitation Act,  the sale was liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge has brought about the inconsistency between sub-r. (2) of r. 92 of O.XXI of the Code and Art. 127 of the Limitation 738 Act and  suggested that steps should be taken to remove this inconsistency. We  fully endorse  the view  expressed by the learned Single Judge.      In the result, the special leave petition must fail and is dismissed. A.P.J.                                   Petition dismissed. 739