ORDER
S. Rajendra Babu, J.
1. In the course of execution proceedings certain properties were brought to sale. The properties were put to sale by auction and the auction was conducted on 28.10.94. The auction purchaser deposited the amount on 29.10.94. The executing Court accepted the bid and confirmed the sale by an order made on 18.11.1995. This order is called in question in this petition. The principal contention put-forth before this Court is that the petitioner challenged the same on various grounds and before accepting the bid and confirming the sale, the executing Court ought to have examined whether there was due compliance with the terms of Order 21 Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 21 Rule 84 of the Civil Procedure Code states as follows:
'Deposit by purchaser and resale on default: (1) On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration, of twenty-five per cent, on the amount of his purchase money to the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be re-sold.'
The contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 84 is mandatory and non-payment of balance amount renders the sale a nullity as held in MANUAL MOHANLAL SHAH AND ORS. v. SARDAR SAYED AHMED SAYED MOHAMED AND ANOTHER. AIR 1984 SC 349 The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the decision in S.V.KANAKARAJ v. VIJAYA BANK. : AIR1987Kant252 It was held therein that auction purchaser has to deposit 25% of the bid amount on the very same day and that rule is mandatory. The Court cannot extend time to deposit such amount even by consent of parties the Even in circumstances when the amount tendered is not accepted, the rule would apply. In reaching this conclusion the learned Judge held that the view expressed in SAVITHRAMMA's case ILR 1973 Kar. 1277 is contrary to the principles laid down in Manual's case.
2. In Savithramma's case it was noticed that as the bid was accepted by the Court and inasmuch as there was a strike in the State Bank on the date on which the bid was accepted, it was not possible to deposit 25% of the amount of consideration in the bank and the next day was a holiday, therefore he deposited on the next working day i.e., on 21st October 1971. This Court took the view that the deposit made on the day immediately next available to do the act contemplated under law was due compliance with order 21 Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure and such compliance would render the amount paid immediately after such declaration as acceptance of the bid. Inasmuch as there is apparent conflict between the view expressed in Savithramma's case and in S.V. Kankaraj's case, the matter has been referred to the Division Bench.
3. The question that falls for consideration is as to what is the meaning to be attributed to the expression that 'the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of 25% of the amount of purchase money.' It is not unknown in law that certain acts have to be done immediately on the occurring of certain events and if such acts are not done accordingly, the same cannot be done subsequently. Under Article 134A of the Constitution an oral application has to be made seeking certificate of fitness to appeal to Supreme Court immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment by the High Court. The meaning of the expression 'immediately after pronouncement of the judgment' came up for consideration before this Court in KESHAVA S. JAMKHANDI v. RAMACHANDRA S. JAMKHANDI : AIR1981Kant97 . This Court took note of the object of using such expression, It was held therein that the object of the provision has to be borne in mind. The use of the expression 'immediately' is to avoid unnecessary delay and such expression is used to convey a sense of urgency and it is impossible to catalogue all possible situations where oral application as having been made immediately. Adopting this principle of interpretation to the present context, the expression 'immediately after the declaration of the purchase' such amount will have to be paid as expeditiously as possible, that is, all steps in regard to deposit of such amount will have to be taken without undue loss of time.
4. On that basis if we interpret the law though there is no power in the Court to extend the time fixed by the statute still the expression immediately is capable of taking within its sweep a situation where an act is impossible of performance on the day on which the auction is held as it happened in Savithramma's case when the bank itself was on strike and no deposit could have been made in the bank or in the event the auction sale is held after Court hours, a receipt order in that regard cannot be obtained for deposit of such an amount. Such amount could be deposited only after obtaining a receipt Order. If next day also happens to be a holiday, the day immediately thereafter coming up which is a working day will be the day on which such act will have to be performed. If any other interpretation is given it would stultify the very object of law. Therefore, we do not think the interpretation placed by this Court in Kanakaraj's case would be a correct way of understanding the law in the matter. Neither the decision in Manual's case nor the decision in Ramachandra's case has any application to the facts of the present case, in those two cases the Court was interpreting as to whether the deposits had been made within the time stipulated under Order 21 Rule 84 and 86. If the deposit had been made in terms of those provisions then there can be no violation of the said rule. Again what falls for consideration is whether the amount was deposited immediately after the declaration was made as to who was the highest bidder. Therefore, the correct principle to be applied in such cases is as indicated by this Court in the full bench decision of this Court to which we have adverted. That is the expression immediately will have to be understood in the context of the matter as imposing the duty upon the party concerned to act with a sense of urgency without undue loss of time. Whether in this case the auction purchaser has acted so or not will have to be considered.
5. It is contended on behalf of the auction purchaser that the auction took place on 28.10.94 and he obtained the receipt order from the Court on the same day but deposited the money on 29.10.94 as it was late for such deposit oh that day. These facts will have to be examined by the executing Court and an appropriate inference drawn thereto. This matter has not been investigated by the Trial Court, as such objection in so many words was not raised before the executing Court and for the first time it is raised before this Court.
6. It is a fundamental legal principle Lex-non-cogit-ad-impossibilla i.e., the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform. The law does not expect a man to perform that which is impossible to do on the date and the time on which it is mentioned and then it must be understood that such performance is expected of him immediately thereafter when he is capable of performing such act.
7. At this stage Sri A.S. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the auction purchaser brings to our notice that the Court made an order on 28.10.94 accepting the final bid of his claim in a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/ and he was asked to deposit 25% of the bid amount forthwith. Thereafter the case was called again at 4 p.m. when the auction purchaser filed an affidavit stating that the office issued him a receipt order only at 3 p.m. and the bank hours were over by 2.30 p.m. he was therefore permitted to deposit 25% of the bid amount on 29.10.1994. He therefore, submits that the payment made on 29.10.1994 is in due compliance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 84 of the C.P.C.
8. Sri Devanand, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court has no power to extend the time prescribed by law i.e., the amount has to be deposited immediately after the bid was accepted. Therefore the amount should have been deposited on that very day. Thus it becomes necessary to examine whether the amount deposited by the auction purchaser on 29.10.1994 is in terms of Order 21 Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. In doing so, necessarily it has to be examined whether the auction purchaser has taken ail steps towards the deposit of such amount without undue loss of time and acted with sense of urgency as indicated in the full bench decision of this Court adverted to earlier. Whether he immediately on acceptance of bid amount he made appropriate application for issue of R.O. and whether such R.O. has been duly issued by the office and such issue of R.O. was beyond the bank hours or not. If it was beyond the bank hours necessarily the deposit made by him on 29.10.1994 as having been made immediately after the acceptance of the bid which is within the terms of Order 21 Rule 84 of the C.P.C. If there is any lapse on the part of the auction purchaser in seeking for the receipt order or any delay in that regard which is undue, the action taken by him is not immediately after the acceptance of the bid, the same shall be examined by the executing Court. In the circumstances the order made by the Court below on 18.11.1995 is set aside and the matter stands remitted to the executing Court to consider this aspect of the matter as to whether there is due compliance of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 84 or not and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and in the light of this order. It would be appropriate for the executing Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible considering the long lapse of time between the date of auction and the amount deposited by the auction purchaser. Petition is allowed in terms stated above.