RAMANLAL NAGINDAS JARIWALA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA UDHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision applications respectively by the original defendant No. 4 and by the original defendants Nos. 1 and 3 are directed against the order of the executing court in the Special Darkhast No. 61 of 1971 pending in the court of the Civil Judge (S. D Surat. The challenge is laid against the acceptance of the bid at the court auction the auction purchaser being the respondent No. 2 Hitendrakumar Jashwantlal Jariwala. The objection to the auction sale is based on the alleged irregularities and illegalities alleged to have been committed in the matter of conducting the auction sale.

(2.) . In the latter of the two revision applications Mr. Sanjanwala has raised one neat question of law by recourse to Order 21 Rule 86 of the Civil Procedure Code. His submission is that after deposited 25% of the purchase price spontaneously the auction purchaser had failed to deposit the remainder of 75% within 15 days of the date of acceptance of the bid and this having been not done that by itself vitiated the entire proceedings and nothing further remained to be done in the matter.

(3.) . As far as the objections on the merits or the procedural aspect of the auction are concerned this High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code would be loath to entertain them particularly when the objectionists had an opportunity to ventilate the grievances by having recourse to Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code. On this ground I refuse to go into those questions though they were vigorously sought to be urged before me by Mr. R. A. Mehta for the petitioner of the first of the two revision applications. I make it clear that if it is legally possible for the objectionists now to regitate that question they may do so and I am not to be understood to have expressed any opinion in that regard here one way or the other. The question of delay can be sought to be thrashed out by recourse to sec. 14 of the Indian Limitation Act and the objectionists may invoke this provision and the executing court will consider it on its own merit.