Gyan Chand Mathur, J. - (1.) Lala Ram applicant No. 1 obtained a simple money decree against Bhajani, opposite party. In execution of the decree, some Bhumidhari land of the Judgment -debtor was attached. On May 25, 1963, the Munsif (executing Court) ordered the issue of the sale proclamation, fixing September 14, 1963, for the sale. On May 27, 1963, the warrant of sale was issued, directing the Amin to sell the attached property by auction. The Amin was directed to return the warrant by September 16, 1963, with an endorsement certifying the manner in which it had been executed. The Amin held the auction on September 14, 1963. The highest bid of Girraj applicant No. 2 of Rs. 1,200/ - was accepted by the Amin and on the same date, Girrai deposited with the Amin a sura of Rs. 300/ -. being 25 per cent of the purchase money. The Amin then returned the warrant together with his report to the Munsif and on September 16, 1963, the Munsif passed an order "bid is approved". On October 15, 1963, the judgment -debtor filed an application under Order XXI. Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale. On November 6, 1963, the Munsif dismissed the application as time -barred, holding that it had been filed beyond the period of limitation of 30 days from September 14, 1963, the date of the sale. Two days later, on November 8, 1963, the Munsif passed the following order: - - "Sale dated 14 -9 -1963 is confirmed. Execution is struck off in full satisfaction " Against the order dismissing the application for setting aside the sale, the judgment -debtor filed an appeal. The District Judge, who heard the appeal, was of the view that the date of the sale was September 16, 1963, the date on which the Munsif approved the bid and that the application for setting aside the sale was filed within 30 days of that date. He accordingly allowed the appeal and directed the Munsif to entertain the objection and to decide it on merits. Against this order, the decree -holders and the auction purchaser have come to this Court in revision.
(2.) The real question, which arises for consideration in this case, is whether the date of the sale is September 14, 1963, when the Amin auctioned the attached property, or September 16, 1963, when the Munsif approved the bid. Under Article 166 of the Limitation Act of 1908, limitation for making an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 is 30 days from "the date of the sale". Admittedly, the application filed by the judgment -debtor is beyond 30 days from September 14, 1963, but within 30 days from September 16, 1963. In allowing the appeal, the District Judge has observed: - - "The Amin has not accepted the bid but he has mentioned in the bid list that a certain bid was the highest bid and then submitted the papers to the learned Munsif who formally accepted the bid on 16th Sept. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Amin had accepted the bid and the order of the learned Munsif is redundant." This is incorrect and is not borne out by the record. The record clearly shows that the Amin had accepted the highest bid of Girraj. The warrant of sale issued to the Amin directed him to sell the attached property by auction and to report compliance by September 16, 1963. The sale proclamation also states that the attached property will be sold by the Amin. On the Fard Neelam, the Amin has noted down all bids received by him, including the last bid of Rs. 1,200/ - by Girrai. After the bids, the Amin has stated that no higher bid than that of Girrai was forthcoming and, therefore, the auction was concluded in favour of Girrai for Rs. 1,200/ -. On the back of the warrant of sale, the Amin has written out his compliance report. In this report also, he has stated that no higher bid than that of Girrai for Rs. 1,200/ - was forthcoming, that the price offered appeared to be adequate and, therefore, the sale was concluded in favour of Girrai for Rs. 1,200/ -. He has further stated that Girrai had deposited Rs, 300/ - in cash towards one -fourth of the sale price and that he had been ordered to deposit the remaining three -fourths of the price, i.e., Rs. 900/ - on or before September 29, 1963. From these facts it is abundantly clear that the Amin had accepted the highest bid of Girrai and had taken the deposit of Rs. 300/ - on account of 25 per cent of the sale price. These reports do not bear out the observation of the District Judge that the Amin had not accepted the bid of Girraj and had merely forwarded the bids for acceptance to the Munsif.
(3.) Learned counsel for the judgment -debtor has contended that, as a matter of law, the sale was completed only when the Munsif approved the bid and, therefore, it is the date of the approval of the bid by the Munsif which is the date of the sale. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon several reported decisions. In all these cases. Order XXI, Rule 84 C.P.C. came up for consideration. This rule reads: "84(1) - - On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of twenty -five per cent on the amount of his purchase -money to the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be re -sold." In Jaibhadar Jha v/s. Matukdari Jha : AIR 1923 Pat 525, it was held that it is only when the presiding officer closes the bidding and formally accepts the bid and declares the purchaser that the sale is complete and that mere closing of the bid does not complete the sale. It appears from the judgment of this case that the sale was conducted by the Nazir and, after recording the bids, he sent the bid -sheet, in accordance with the practice, to the Munsif who wrote "close" against the last offer and signed the order. Thereafter the auction purchaser deposited one -fourth of the sale price. It is thus clear that the Nazir had not accepted the highest bid and had merely forwarded the bid list for acceptance to the Munsif. In these circumstances, the sale was complete only when the Munsif accepted the bid and declared the purchaser.;