Usmansab Hatel Sahab Vs. R.L. Meharwade & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 443 of 1998
( Arising out of SLP ( C ) No. 14851 of 1997 )
( Arising out of SLP ( C ) No. 14851 of 1997 )
Petitioner: Usmansab Hatel Sahab
Respondent: R.L. Meharwade & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 443 of 1998
( Arising out of SLP ( C ) No. 14851 of 1997 )
( Arising out of SLP ( C ) No. 14851 of 1997 )
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.S.M. QUADRI , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 23, 1998
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code , 1890
Order 21 Rule 90 , 85 – Loss suffered by Auction purchaser for setting aside the sale – Auction purchasers failure to deposit amount in 15 days – Sale set-aside at instance of co-owner of property – In revision petition , High Court directing payment of loss suffered by auction purchaser , as sale being set-aside , after 15 years – Held that it is undisputed that auction – pur-chaser had not paid the money within 15 days and therefore sale had to be set-aside. Hence , order directing the appellant to pay loss suffered by auction purchaser , set-aside ( Para 6 )
Civil Procedure Code , 1890
Order 21 Rule 90 , 85 – Loss suffered by Auction purchaser for setting aside the sale – Auction purchasers failure to deposit amount in 15 days – Sale set-aside at instance of co-owner of property – In revision petition , High Court directing payment of loss suffered by auction purchaser , as sale being set-aside , after 15 years – Held that it is undisputed that auction – pur-chaser had not paid the money within 15 days and therefore sale had to be set-aside. Hence , order directing the appellant to pay loss suffered by auction purchaser , set-aside ( Para 6 )
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1 . Delay condoned .
2 . Leave granted .
3 . Heard learned counsel for the parties .
4 . The appellant , who is the co-owner of the suit property ,applied under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC , for setting aside the sale on the ground that the auction-purchaser had not paid the purchase money within 15 days as required by Order 21 Rule 85 . The executing court upheld the contention and set aside the sale .
5 . Aggrieved by that order , Respondent 1 filed an appeal but it was dismissed . He , therefore , filed a revision petition to the High Court . The High Court while dismissing the revision petition directed the appellant to pay the loss suffered by the auction-purchaser as at his instance the sale was being set aside after 15 years and the auction-purchaser has suffered a loss because of the delay . The High Court also directed an enquiry to be held in that behalf .
6 . It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order directing the appellant to pay the loss suffered by the auction-purchaser is illegal as no such order could have been passed under Order 21 Rule 90 . It is undisputed that the auction-purchaser had not paid the purchase money within 15 days and therefore the sale was liable to be set aside . It is also not disputed that such an order could not have been passed by the High Court while dismissing the revision petition of the auction-purchaser . We , therefore , allow this appeal and set aside that part of the order passed by the High Court whereby the appellant has been directed to pay the loss suffered by Respondent 1 .
7 . As the appeal was filed beyond time , we have condoned the delay on the condition that the appellant pays Rs. 5000 to Re-spondent 1 as cost within 8 weeks from today .
1 . Delay condoned .
2 . Leave granted .
3 . Heard learned counsel for the parties .
4 . The appellant , who is the co-owner of the suit property ,applied under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC , for setting aside the sale on the ground that the auction-purchaser had not paid the purchase money within 15 days as required by Order 21 Rule 85 . The executing court upheld the contention and set aside the sale .
5 . Aggrieved by that order , Respondent 1 filed an appeal but it was dismissed . He , therefore , filed a revision petition to the High Court . The High Court while dismissing the revision petition directed the appellant to pay the loss suffered by the auction-purchaser as at his instance the sale was being set aside after 15 years and the auction-purchaser has suffered a loss because of the delay . The High Court also directed an enquiry to be held in that behalf .
6 . It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order directing the appellant to pay the loss suffered by the auction-purchaser is illegal as no such order could have been passed under Order 21 Rule 90 . It is undisputed that the auction-purchaser had not paid the purchase money within 15 days and therefore the sale was liable to be set aside . It is also not disputed that such an order could not have been passed by the High Court while dismissing the revision petition of the auction-purchaser . We , therefore , allow this appeal and set aside that part of the order passed by the High Court whereby the appellant has been directed to pay the loss suffered by Respondent 1 .
7 . As the appeal was filed beyond time , we have condoned the delay on the condition that the appellant pays Rs. 5000 to Re-spondent 1 as cost within 8 weeks from today .
