ORDER
Siva Subramaniam, J.
1. This revision petition C.R.P. No. 535 of 1985 is directed against the judgment in C.M.A. No. 22 of 1983 on the file of the District Judge, Salem.
2. The petitioner herein was adjudicated as insolvent on his application in I.P. No. 3 of 1980. The properties of the petitioner/insolvent were brought to sale by the official Receiver, who is the second respondent herein, on the basis of the details given by one of the creditors. After publishing proclamation for sale under Ex.B.1, the official Receiver conducted the sale of the properties of the insol(sic) in which items 1 and 3 were sold. The first respondent who is one of the creditors of the insolvent was the successful bidder. Item No. 1 was sold as the first lot for Rs. 7,750 while items 3 to 5 were sold as lot number 2 for Rs. 11,750 The insolvent filed an application in I.A. No. 295 of 1981 for setting aside the sale held by the official Receiver, after 21 days of the sale but before confirmation of the sale. He contended that there was no proper publication at all in the village, that the properties are worth more and that the first respondent played fraud in publishing the sale notice and in the conduct of the sale. The application was resisted by the first respondent auction purchaser on the ground that there was proper and valid publication of proclamation and that the properties were sold for proper price. It was further contended that the petition was barred by time. The second respondent the official Receiver filed a memo giving details of the publication of the proclamation and conduct of the sale.
3. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence let in by the parties held that there are no grounds to set aside the sale and petition is barred by limitation Consequently it dismissed the petition. As against the said order, the insolvent preferred the appeal in C.M.A. No. 22 of 83 on the file of the District judge, salem and the same also was dismissed. However, the learned judge took the view that the application is not barred by limitation. Aggrieved against this decision, the petitioner has preferred the above revision petition.
4. Sri T. Somasundaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to various irregularities in the sale. His first contention was that the properties were sold for a lesser prigs. He pointed out that on 13-3-1981 in the proclamation itself, the value of the items 3 to 5 is shown as Rs. 26,000 but they were actually sold for Rs. 11,750 According to him, the Official Receiver is obliged to reserve a right to adjourn the sale and in this case it was not done. The second contention was that the official Receiver had not followed the rules and civil Rules of practice and the circular orders of the High Court. Thirdly it was submitted that the insolvent had filed an objection for annulment in I A. No. 258 of 1981 and the same was allowed by the insolvency Court, and therefore, the sale of the properties by the Official Receiver cannot be sustained. I have heard the arguments at some length. But I will not be justified in giving a finding on these disputed points at this stage, since the matter has to be disposed of on a question of limitation.
5. Sri T.D. Vasu, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/auction purchaser attempted to justify the sale held by the official Receiver. He submitted that the present application to set aside the sale is hopelessly barred by time, and therefore, it should be dismissed on that ground alone. We will presently consider this objection as a preliminary point.
6. It is seen that the present application to set aside the sale was filed by the petitioner only on 29.9.1981, whereas the sale was held on 25.5.1981. Therefore admittedly the petition has been filed more than 21 days after sale was held by the Official Receiver. The learned District judge held that the petition is not barred by limitation on the ground that the application was filed by the petitioner within 21 days from the date of deposit of sale price by the first respondent/auction purchaser and long before the confirmation of sale. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ramaswami Reddiar v. The official Receiver of South Arcot (1941)2 M.L.J. 382. A careful reading of the said decision shows that the reasoning of the learned Judge in the present case is not correct. In that case, a Bench of this Court held that the date of sale by the official Receiver, date of confirmation of such sale and the date of execution of sale deed are relevant dates, each one gives a cause of action to file petition to set aside the sale. The bench further held that all these acts by the official Receiver could be the subject of an application under Section 68 of the Presidency. Towns Insolvency Act, since they were the acts of the Receiver against which the insolvent was aggrieved. It is to be noticed in that case the petition to set aside the sale was held to be within the time. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, I am unable to understand how the present petition can be said to be within time. It is no doubt true that all the said three events would give cause of action to the petitioner to file a petition to set aside the sale. In this case, as already noticed, the sale took place on 25-8-1981 and the sale is yet to be confirmed. Admittedly the first cause of action, namely, the date of sale is not available to the petitioner since the petition was filed beyond 21 days. On the next cause of action namely the confirmation of sale the petition cannot be filed. It is not possible to hold that the present petition filed to set aside the sale is within time. The confirmation of a sale is not a definite event which may happen or may not happen. Therefore, the petitioner has to await for that to happen and then agitate his claims. As such the petition is clearly barred by limitation. It is really unfortunate that the petition has to be dismissed on this technical ground after a long time but this cannot be helped in the circumstances of the case. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to renew this application and urge all the grounds that are raised here in the event of confirmation of sale by the official Receiver. The petitioner should come forward with a petition with the period of limitation. It is open to the petitioner to request the trial Court to dispose of such a petition expeditiously in view of the pendency of this proceedings for a long time.
7. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs.