Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.02.2012 vide which the objection filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and the sale deed dated 01.10.2004 as well as sale proceedings in favour of the petitioner have been set aside. In brief, one Vijay Singh obtained loan from the respondent -Bank while mortgaging his residential house. Since he had not paid the instalments, therefore, the respondent -Bank filed the suit for recovery which was ultimately decreed. The mortgaged property was put to auction in terms of order 21 Rule 84 of the CPC. The said auction took place on 01.10.2004 in which the petitioner was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 40,000/ -. The case of the respondents was that after the death of Vijay Singh (borrower), his widow -Smt. Rani had deposited the entire dues of the Bank amounting to Rs. 2,01,784/ - alongwith interest.
(2.) THE respondent -Bank filed objection under Section 47 CPC read with Order 21 Rule 19 of the CPC before the Executing Court challenging the auction proceedings on the ground that there was complete violation of Order 21 Rule 84 of the CPC. Learned counsel for respondent -Bank has submitted that as per Order 21 Rule 84, the highest bidder is required to deposit 25% money at the time of auction and in case the bid money is not deposited, the auctioneer has to put the property for resale. He referred to Order 21 Rule 84 of the CPC which read as under: - "84. Deposit by purchaser and re -sale on default. -(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. (2) Where the decree -holder is the purchaser and is entitled to set -off the purchase -money under rule 72, the Court may dispense with the requirements of this rule."
(3.) LEARNED Executing Court has allowed the objection of the respondent -Bank on the ground that the decree -holder led no evidence to show that the auction purchaser has immediately deposited 25% amount of the bid money on the date of auction rather it came on record that the entire money was deposited on 09.10.2004 after expiry of eight days.;