NAND LAL Vs. SIDDIQUAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision under Section 115 C. P. C. by an auction-purchaser.

(2.) On 4-11-53 it was ordered that sale should take place on 23-12-53 of the property in dispute. On 23-12-53 sale of the property was held and it was purchased by the auction-purchaser applicant. On that day he deposited 25 per cent, of the purchase money under Order 21 Rule 84. The balance of the purchase money he had to deposit within fifteen days from the date of the sale, i.e. the deposit should have been made by 7-1-54 at the latest, as required by Rule 85 of Order 21. On 6-1-54, instead of depositing the money, the auction-purchaser prayed for further extension of time to deposit the money till 23-1-54. The court extended the time only by ten days. On 15-1-54 the remaining amount was deposited. On 23-1-54 the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was granted. On 29-1-54, i.e. after the confirmation of the sale, an application was moved- that since the money had not been deposited within the statutory period of fifteen days, as required under Order 21 Rule 85 the sale should be set aside, and it is this application which has given rise to this application in revision. The court below held that the sale was a nullity as the 75 per cent, had not been deposited and, therefore, it set aside the sale and ordered resale of the property. Against that order the auction-purchaser has come to this Court.

(3.) There is a preliminary ground taken by the opposite party that no application in revision lies, for the sale has been set aside under Order 21, Rule 92, There is an appeal provided and the applicant should have gone in appeal, under Order 49 Rule 1 (j)." I asked the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether he treated this order under Order 21, Rule 92 or an order under Section 47. In either event there would be a right of appeal whether the sale is set aside under Order 21 Rule 92 or on an objection in execution proceeding by the Judgment debtor under Section 47. In my opinion, in the circumstances the applicant should have gone in appeal against that order and not in revision, and since the order is of the Munsif, the applicant should have gone to the District Judge.