Joginder Singh v. Bakshish Singh & Anr.

Present : Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P.D.Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** T.P.S.MANN, J ,(ORAL) By a common order, the present revision as well as Civil Revision No.2728 of 2008 are being disposed of. During the course of the execution of a decree obtained by the plaintiff-bank against Bakshish Singh, the property of the latter was auctioned on 27.10.2007, wherein the bid of the petitioner was accepted. C.R. No. 6395 of 2007 -2- He deposited 1/4th amount at the spot which was duly deposited thereafter, in the Court on 29.10.2007 under the signatures of Tehsildar, Patran. The remaining amount was to be deposited within a period of 15 days from the date of the auction. Incidentally, the 15th day was a holiday, being Sunday. On the following day, i.e., 12.11.2007, learned Presiding Officer of the executing Court was not holding the Court. These facts remain undisputed. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application before the executing Court only on 13.11.2007 and deposited the remaining amount. However, the deposit made by him on

13.11.2007 was not approved by the executing Court on the ground that the same was beyond the period of 15 days from the date of the auction. Accordingly, the trial Court proceeded to forfeit the 1/4th amount, which had been earlier deposited by the petitioner. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that after depositing 1/4th amount at the spot, the petitioner, who was the auction purchaser, was required to deposit the remaining amount within 15 days and the said period could not be extended. Therefore, the deposit made by the petitioner on 13.11.2007 was not a valid deposit and the executing Court was justified in forfeiting the 1/4th amount, which had initially been deposited by the petitioner at the time of auction. In such a situation, his client, i.e., defendant-judgment debtor be allowed to deposit the decretal amount by sale of the property through private negotiations instead of C.R. No. 6395 of 2007 -3- public auction, for which purpose Bakshish Singh, the judgment debtor, had filed Civil Revision No.2728 of 2008. From 27.10.2007 when the auction was conducted and the petitioner had deposited 1/4th of the auction amount, he was entitled to a period of 15 days so as to deposit the remaining amount. By chance, 15th day happened to be a holiday, being Sunday. On the following day, i.e.,

12.11.2007, learned Presiding Officer of the executing Court was not holding Court and, therefore, the petitioner could not file any application on the said date for depositing the remaining amount of the auction. On

13.11.2007, the petitioner filed an application for depositing the money and also deposited the amount, which he was required to deposit in terms of the auction. Under these circumstances, the petitioner could not be made to suffer for not depositing the remaining amount of the auction on the 15th day and also on the day following as on the said date, learned Presiding Officer of the executing Court was not holding Court. The deposit, therefore, made by the petitioner on 13.11.2007 could not be said to be beyond the period as prescribed under the terms and conditions of the auction. Under these circumstances, learned executing Court was not justified in directing the forfeiture of the bid amount, which had been deposited by the petitioner at the spot on 27.10.2007. Accordingly, the revision (Civil Revision No.6395 of 2007) filed by the auction purchaser is accepted, impugned order of forfeiture of the 1/4th amount is set-aside and the executing Court is directed to C.R. No. 6395 of 2007 -4- proceed ahead with the matter by considering the fact that the deposit of the remaining amount made by the auction purchaser on 13.11.2007 was a valid deposit. This be followed by expediting the proceedings regarding confirmation of the sale. Once the said proceedings are completed, the amount be released by the executing Court in favour of the plaintiff-bank so as to adjust the same against the decretal amount. In view of the revision filed by the auction purchaser having been accepted, Civil Revision No. 2728 of 2008 filed by Bakshish Singh, has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of. November 20, 2008 ajay-1 ( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE -5- C.R. No. 6395 of 2007 C.R. No. 2728 of 2008 Present : Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.D.Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** For detailed orders, see Civil Revision No. 6395 of 2007. November 20, 2008 ajay-1 ( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE