Judgment:
ORDER
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 604 of 1991 and Civil Revision No. 603 of 1991 as identical questions of law and fact are involved.
2. Both the revision petitions are against the orders of Senior Sub Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the petitioner's application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking setting aside the order of confirmation dated 29-5-1983 was dismissed.
3. Facts giving rise to this order are that Rano Devi etc. got a decree for Rs. 28,000/- as compensation against Girdhari Lal and others on 13-9-1990 and in execution of this decree the land of Girdhari Lal was auctioned on 14-7-1983 for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. Girdhari Lal filed objection that the land measuring 41 Kanals 5 marlas, as detailed in objection petition, was auctioned on 14-7-1983 for a petty amount and was purchased by Romal Singh respondent. The present objections were filed against the confirmation of sale. Simultaneously, the judgment debtor deposited a sum of Rs. 28 000/- on 28-3-1984. Similarly, another sum of Rs. 28,500/- was deposited by the objector in the connected revision petition. This way the whole of the decretal amount was deposited by the judgment debtor, yet the Court under some mistaken impression confirmed the sale vide order dated 29-5-1985. The executing Court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the order dated 29-5-1985 passed by Sh. K.S. Uppal, the then S.J.I.C. Gurdaspur, confirming the sale is void and nullity. If so, to what effect OP JD.
2. Relief.
4. Under Issue No. 1, executing Court came to the conclusion that though the judgment debtor had deposited a sum of Rs. 28,000/- on 28.3.1984, yet there has been non compliance of Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the judgment debtor was duty bound to deposit whole of the decretal amount plus 5 % of the purchase money for payment to the purchaser. Since he has not deposited 5 % of the purchase money, so there has been non compliance of Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and even otherwise the decretal amount was deposited on 28.3.1984 i.e. after a period of 30 days from the date of auction which was held on 14.7.1983 and so decided this issue against the judgment debtor. Accordingly, the objection was dismissed.
5. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that land valuing about Rs. 8 lakhs owned by the judgment debtor was sold for a petty sum. Since the judgment debtor was in jail, his relative took steps to deposit the decretal amount and, in fact, deposited a sum of Rs. 28,000/- in one case and another sum of Rs 28,500/- in the other case towards the decretal amount vide two separate challans dated 28.3.1984. Since the amount had already been deposited the sale was set aside by the Court vide order dated 25.3.1985. The Court, however, glossed over this material aspect of the matter and confirmed the sale vide order dated 29.5.1985. The learned counsel drew my attention to the operative part of the order of Sh. Tara Singh, Sub Judge Ist Class, Gurdaspur, dated 25.3.1985, Exhibit D-2, which reads as under :-
'In view of ray above finding, the objection petition is accepted only to this extent that the confirmation of the sale made by my learned predecessor as per his order dated 20.8.1983 is set aside. The objections are otherwise dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The auction purchaser may move an application for reconfirmation of the sale.'
6. In addition to the deposit of the decretal amount, the counsel further brought to my notice copy of the challan whereby 5% of the decretal amount has been deposited in the government treasury. The fact that amount was deposited long before the confirmation of sale, the objections raised by the respondent and upheld by the executing Court are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, I accept both the revision petitions, set aside the order dated 29.5.1985. The parties will, however, bear their own costs.