The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NA]{DIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.47O2 of 2Ol2 ORDER: This Civil Rcvision Petition is filed by the petitioner (Judgment Debtors) under Section 15 I of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (lbr short C.P.C) assailing the order dated

05.O9.2012 in II.A.No.B 1 of 20 12 in E.P.No.41 of 2OO9 passed by the Senior Cir,'il ,Judee. Sidclipet, District Medak, (for short,'the impugned order')

2. Vide thc inrpugrred order, the petition iiled b1, the responcient No.1/arrction purchaser under Section 151 of C.P.C vvas allou,ed b-r, thr: trial court directing the judgment debtor to pay an arnount of Rs.2,7O,000/- to the auction plrrchaser i.e., the petitioner therr:in to set aside the auction conducted on

27.12.2O12 in respt'ct of the schedule A property, f;riling u,hich, the petitioner thert:in rvas permitted to deposit balance 7 5ol' of the sale amount lo get sale dated 24.O7.2072 to confirm

3. The brief facts of the case are, the respondent No.2 being the decree holcler filed an execution petition vide E.P.No.41 of 2009 seeking sale of immovable properties i.e., schedule A & B properties.Behedule A(1) property consists of three bits i.e., land I ..) .. I in Sy.No.2B2/E, extcnt Ac. 1-07 % guntas, Sy.No.2B3/A, extent Ac.0-08 guntas, Sy.No.284/Aa, extent Ac.0-07 guntas, situated at Ponr-ial Village, rvherein the judgment de btor ,ur,as set cxparte.

4. Thc judgment debtor aftcr exhaustir-rg all the remedies, the saicl property \l1as brought to the salc and auction was conducted; rvherein the respondent No.1 auction purchaser was the successful bidder having participated in the said auction and lraid amor-rnt of Rs.54,00,0OO /- for sale of the schedule property ar-rd the respondent No. 1/auctiorr purchaser has de posited 1 /4th amourlt ol thc Rs. 13,50,0O0/- into the court. The balance amount u,as directed to be deposit within a period of fifteen (15) days.

5. Before depositing the balance amounts by the auction purcl-raser, the decree holder contended that the judgment debtor has deposited entire E.P. amount to',r,ards full and final settlement and a full satisfaction memo also lr,as filed into the court and the same was recorded and E.P. proceedings were closed. Therelore, the auction purchaser filed the present petition asking lor confirmation of sa-le permitting him to dcposit balance amount or otherwise to refund 1/4tr.. amount of 3 Rs.13,5O,O0O l- a1ong, u,ith sum equal to 57o pt:nalty of the auctior-r amounl as per Order XXI Rule 89 olC.P.C.

6. The decrce l-roldcr has liled a counter den.ying the averments nrade in the petition and also he cert iflcd that the judgment debtc,r has paid the entire decreetal amount to the satisfaction ol rlecree holder and he denied as to the seeking additional arnount of strm equal to 5%, of the auctiotr amoultt and he also con'iencled that since no sale certificate is issued, the petitioner herein not entitlecl to the additional amollnt of sum equal to 50% of the auction amount and therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the petition.

7. Responden t/judgment debtor also filed courlter denf ing the averments thereir-r contending that the petitiorrer therein has no locus to file tl-re prescnt application as the highest bidder is not the purchasr:r ol the propert-y unless the sale is confirmed he cannot be treated as a purchaser, as such he is not entitled for the sum equal to 5'2,

8. Having heard the petitioner and the respondents, the learned trial cour-t rejected the said application.

9. Being aggrieved bv the same, the judgment debtor has filed the present civil revlslon petition contending that t here ls an 4 error committed by the trial court in entertaining the petition undcr Section 151 ol C.P.C sceking to confirm the sale held in auctior-r or return the deposited amount ol Rs.13,50,000/ along n'ith sum equal to 5%r ol total purchase amount. It is lurther contended that as the sale has not been confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser as such the payment of Rs.2,75,0O0/ witl-r sum equal to 57o of total purchase seems to be erroneous ard sustainablc.

10. Further it is contended that respondent No.l /auction purcirase r l-ras failcd to dcposit tl-re balance amount u,itl-rin a period of fifteerr (l 5) days as stipulated under the provisions of C.P.C. rvithout reference to the compromise betr.l,een the parties I 1. He further contendcd Lhat the revision petitioner inlact onlr' 1iablc to pa]' a sum of Rs.2i,00O/- but not the amount of Rs. I ,2 1,000/- as claimed b-v the decree holder. Besides that, it is further contended that the auction purchaser has no bonalides 111 asking the said amount as he has withdrar,i,n the sum of Rs. 13,50,000 I - i.e., 25''/o of the entire purchase money deposited by him at time on the date of auction.

12. The auction purchaser has not been put to any loss or damage on account of deposit of 25 o/o of the entire purchase amount except losing interest for the said arnount for that period, ald there are no bonafides of the auction purchaser in asking the said amount unless ar-rd until, the sale is confirmed, the sale certific,rte is issued in favour of the auction pr-trchaser, he has no right to ask for an,y relief much less the sum equal to 5o/o of the cntire purchase amount and prayed to allow the present civil revision petition

13. Heard Sri Lakshmi Manohar, learned cottnsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.Ancrndam, learned counsel lor t}-ie petitioner. None appears for respondent No. 1. As the respondenl No. I being the auction purchaser i.e., the petitioner in E.A.No.Bi of 2OI2, as he is the sole contesting rcspondent, as such notice to other respondent r,r,as dispensed with. L4. Having heard the contentions of the petrtioner \\,ho contended and reiterated that though the auction purchaser has participated ancl he bccame the successful bidder. he has r-rot became the absolute ou,ner of the said property as the sale is not yet confirmed and sale certificate is not yet isstred and the auction purchaser has not paid the entire purchase money into the court and as he has already deposited 25'lu of the bid I I I 6 amount and also contended that as per Order XXI Rule 89 of C.P.C. which reads as follorvs ORI)ER X\I: Exccution of l)ecrccs and Ordcrs Itat nrcn t untlcr f)ecrcc:

89. ,\oolication to sct asi(lc salc orr dc p ()s it. ( I) Whcre immovable property lras bccn soltl in cxecution of a clecrec, I lany pcrson clairling an intcrest in the property soltl at thc tiurc of the salc or at thc time of making the application, or acting fbr or in the intcrest of such person,l nray apply to l.ravc thc sale sct aside on his depositing in (,'ourt,- (a) tirr 1:a1'mcnt to the purchaser, a sum equal to fi\,c pcr cont. o1' thc pulcirasc-moncy, antl (b) tirr paynrent, to the ,Jecrec-holdcr, the amount specificd in tlrc pnrclarnation of salc as that lor thc rccovcry of ordcrcd, less any amount wlrich may, rvhich the salc sincc the datc of such proclamation of salc, have been receivcd by thc decrec-lroldcr. "r,as (2) Whcre a llcrsor) applies undcr rulc 90 to sct asidc tltc salc of' his irnrnovatrlc propcrtv. hc sliall not. unless he rvithdrarvs his application. bc enlitlcd to makc ur prosecutc an allplicatitrrt untler this rrrle. (3) Nothing irr this rulc shall relievc thc judgrncnt-dcbtor trrrur any Iiability hc nrav bc untler in lespect ol costs and intclcst not covorccl [ry the prt.rclamation ofsalc.

15. If we peruse the szrid Order XXI Rule 89, the relcvant portion which says that the very \(rord which is being used is where immovable and execution of anv decree and which savs that any person claims any interest in the property can make an application to seek the sale set asidc on his depositing before thc '7 court for the pavment to the pLlrchaser the sum cqual to 57n of the purchase money s'hich the decree holder entitled. The amount specilied is the proclamation amollnt r'r'hich is mentioned on the date of prociamation and it has bcen receivcd by decree holder. No doubt, the r.r,ords u'hich are use d in the said provision is as to the purchase monev or the arnount whic}r is specified in the proclamation amount

16. Admittedll,, in the present case an auction has been conducted and the auction purchaser i.e., resl>ondent No.1 herein have became a successful bidder and alter being the successful bidder as per the procedure of auction the respondent No.l auction purchaser has deposited onl_v 25')1, of the sale amount of Rs. 13,5O,000/- into the court being thr' successful bidder. Tl-rough, he he'rd deposited the balerncc arnount befcrre conclusion of ttre entire sale transaction and to eet the sale culminate into the issuing ol sale certificate but before depositing the entire sale consideration as the matt('r has been settled by the judgment debtor u,ith the decree holdt:r' by payilrg the entire decreetal amount or the E.P. amount, r,r'hc reby decree holder has liled a memo recording full satisfaction crf the entire E.P. amount, in such case, the word vvhich is used irr the Order XXI Rule 89 of C.P.C. rvhich says that once the propertr. sold and ::8:: there is no sale certificate is issued and issuing of sale certificate is still under process and there is no completion of entire procedurc of auction beforc the court and as there are further steps to be follor.ved as per Orcler XX[ Rule 89 till issuance of sale certilicate, as the entire purchase money u,as not depositcd by the auction purchaser, as such, the findings given by the E.P. court that Rule 89 suggests tr,vo conditions; one is depositing of SLI1TI equal to 5ol, of the pr-rrchase money to be paid to the purchaser and second depositing of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as anv amount received b.y the decree holder since the date of sr-rch proclamation in the court. If these conditions are satisfied, the court shall make an order for setting aside the same. L7. The worci purchase price under Rule 89 means, that it is actual price, but does not include poundage, solatium, non- judicial stamps etc. In addition to the payment to the decreetal amount to the decree holdcr, 5'lc, of the purchase money should be deposited for payment to the auction purchaser to get the sale set aside. It is also further hcld that the said amount should be determined by the court belore such deposit and that this amount constitutes penalt_y and also held that the object of the section is to saleguard the interest of the auction purchascr and 9 payment of sum equal to 57o of the purchase to is the auction purchaser is to mitigate the loss caused to him.

18. In the pr€'sent case, no doubt, the judgmcn t debtor is bound to pily 59/o of the purchase mone-y to tlre auction purchaser to mtrke the loss good to him as decr-ce holder and judgement debtor seeking the auction to be set aside lor the reason that thev have settled the matter betw'een thc'rn and the' decree holder re<:eive his entire E.P. amount as judgrnent debtor seeking setting aside the auction. Hence, to sal,:guard tlre interest of the auction purchaser by pa_ving the sum t:cpral to 5'X, of purchase which constitute penalty to the judgmcnt debtor.

19. The learned E.P. court u,hile understanding thc w,ot'd purchase pri<:e has made and observation that tlie sernte is actual price, though held that it does not includc poundagc, soiatium, non-judicial stamps etc., he also pointcd orrt that the very intention of the above provision is to safeguerrd lhe ilrterest of the auction purchaser, but in the present czrse, thr: interest ol the auction purchaser is subject to the provision of Order XXI Rule 89 and ttre subsequent provisions under Order -XXI Rule 89 where the saicl judgment debtor is entitled to seek st'tting aside of the sarne at any point of time till the sale certificatc is issuecl :: [0:: In the prescnt casc, the auction of the said property is not yet concluded or culminated in issuarce of sale certificate and as the amount rn,hich is deposited b1' the auction purchaser is only 25ol' ol the auction amount and the direction to pay deposit 57n of the purchase money i.e., the amount. of Rs.54,000/ rvould amount to be irrational and cannot be accepted for the reason that the actual loss which occurred b_y the auction purchaser and the very intentior-i of safeguarding the interest of the auction purchaser should be only to thc extcnt of the amount that he has deposited into thc court, but not the entire auction amount, as such this Court finds that the finding given by the learned E.P. court that the said amour-rt s'hich is deposited i.e., 57o on the sale amount means and it should bc treated as entire sale amount or the purchase moncy, appcars to be incorrect and it should be on the actual amount u,hich is deposited i.c.,25uk or if it is deposited more than that or on the entire purchase amount.

20. In the present case as he has deposited only 25%o of auction amount, the learned E. P. court ought to have directed the respondent judgment debtor to deposit 5o/o of the actual amount paid, but not one the entire purchase money as it is in the preliminar5r stage. As the property has not yet been sold and sale certificate is issued or the sale is made absolute. In such ::ll:: case, the impugned order appears to be erroneolts atrd the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside 21, For the aforesaid reason, this civil revision pctrl ion is partll' allowecl permitting the revision petitioner / .ludgnrent debtor herein to ileposit the 5ol, of Rs. 13,50,000/ and scel< c;incclation of the saicl auction deducting the amount rvhich is rrlready paicl as per the comprlizrnce of the order passed b-r, this Cotrrt vidc order, clatcd 28.O<).2012, within one rveck from tlrc date ol receipt of coprl, of this order

22. As a sequel, rniscellaneous petitions pending, il'an-r,, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a :JECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, at Siddipet, Medak District. 2. One CC to SRl. G ANANDAM Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI RATVA MOHAN PALANKI Advocate [OPtiC] 4. Two CD Copies TPK/kanr (fr HIGH COURT DATED :2511012025 I I ORDER CRP.No.47A2 of 20'12 .-* r'!iE S7r1i i.:' 22 t\l0',m * o ,_) t * CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED ?tr ril u\tr