{"id":94649,"date":"2010-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-02T11:14:00","modified_gmt":"2015-08-02T05:44:00","slug":"bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar … on 3 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar … on 3 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Borde<\/div>\n
                                                   1\n\n      \n                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n                               WRIT PETITION NO.4104  OF 2009   \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n      \n     Bhagwandas s\/o Chunilal Purohit,\n     age: 46 years, Occ: Business,\n     R\/o Shivajinagar Dalphad, Jalgaon,\n     Tq. and District Jalgaon.                                             Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                      Versus\n\n     1 Machindra s\/o Rama Patil,\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n        age: 45 years, Occ: Agril.,\n        R\/o Sanjay Nagar, Plot No.300,\n                           \n        Survey No.48, Udana Yard Limbayat,\n        Surat.\n                          \n     2 Chandrashekhar Shankar Nandedkar,\n        age: major, Occ: Business,\n        R\/o 14, Rachna Colony, Jalgaon,\n        Tq. And District Jalgaon.                                          Respondents\n      \n\n      \n   \n\n\n\n     Mr.Ajay Talhar,   advocate for the petitioner.\n     Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, advocate for Respondent No.1.\n     Mr.Vinod P. Patil, advocate for Respondent No.2. \n\n\n\n\n\n                                                        CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                   Reserved on     : 27th   April, 2010.\n                                                                      rd\n                                               Pronounced on: 03  May, 2010.\n     JUDGMENT.:\n\n\n\n\n\n     1                Heard   Shri   Ajay   Talhar,   learned   Counsel   for   petitioner,   Shri \n\n<\/pre>\n
     S.B.Yawalkar,   learned   Counsel   for  Respondent   No.1   and   Shri   Vinod   P.   Patil, <\/p>\n
     learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
                      Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
     learned Counsel for respective parties.\n<\/p>\n
     2                Petitioner – original defendant is raising exception to the order <\/p>\n
     dated   02.05.2009,   passed   by   II   Joint   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division,   Jalgaon, <\/p>\n
     below   Exhibit-75   in   Special   Darkhast   No.38\/2006,   whereby   objection <\/p>\n
     application  tendered  by  petitioner  –   judgment  debtor  came   to  be  turned <\/p>\n
     down by the executing court.\n<\/p>\n
     3                Respondent No.1 is decree holder who had presented Special <\/p>\n
     Civil Suit No.252 of 2001 claiming recovery of amount of Rs.5,29,000\/- against <\/p>\n
                           rd<\/p>\n
     petitioner – judgment debtor.   Suit presented by Respondent No.1 came to
\n                                                        th
\n     be decreed on 23  December 2005 by 4  Ad hoc Additional District Judge, <\/p>\n
     Jalgaon.   The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was subject <\/p>\n
     matter   of   challenge   in   First   Appeal   No.704   of   2006   at   the   instance   of <\/p>\n
     petitioner – judgment debtor.  Appeal is admitted by this Court on 18.01.2007.\n<\/p>\n
     Initially stay of execution of decree was granted on condition of deposit of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     4,00,000\/- by appellant – judgment debtor.   However, petitioner – judgment <\/p>\n
     debtor failed to deposit the amount.  As such, interim stay to the execution of <\/p>\n
     decree granted by this Court in First Appeal stood vacated.\n<\/p>\n
     4                Special   Darkhast   No.38   of   2006   came   to   be   presented   by <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.1 – original decree holder seeking execution of decree.  The <\/p>\n
     property   in   question   bearing   G.No.800   admeasuring   71   ares   was   put   to <\/p>\n
                                                               nd
\n     auction.  The auction sale was conducted on 2  March 2009 after observing <\/p>\n
     procedure prescribed in that behalf.  Initially, it appears, one Sitaram Omkar <\/p>\n
     Puprohit,   who   participated   in   the   bid,   was   declared   as   successful   bidder, <\/p>\n
     whose offer for purchase of land was for Rs.4,61,000\/-.   His bid was accepted <\/p>\n
     on 02.03.2009 and he was directed to deposit 25% of the amount.  However, <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
     said Sitaram failed to make deposit of the amount up to 5.30 p.m. on the said <\/p>\n
     date, as such, his offer was cancelled.  On the same day, property was put to <\/p>\n
     resale   and   Respondent   No.2,   whose   bid   was   second   highest,   agreed   to <\/p>\n
     purchase the property for an amount of Rs.4,61,000\/- equivalent to the offer <\/p>\n
     made   by   Sitaram   Purohit.     The   offer   made   by   Respondent   No.2   was, <\/p>\n
     therefore,   accepted.     However,   by   the   time   proceedings   for   resale   were <\/p>\n
     completed, Court time was over.  As such, he was permitted by the executing <\/p>\n
     court   to   deposit   25%   of   the   amount   on   the   next   day   i.e.   03.03.2009.\n<\/p>\n
     Accordingly, Respondent No.2 deposited 25% of the amount on 03.03.2009 <\/p>\n
     and has also deposited balance of 75% amount within period permissible in <\/p>\n
     law.\n<\/p>\n
     5               In the meantime, judgment debtor presented an application <\/p>\n
     purported to be an application under Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure <\/p>\n
     and   objected   to   auction   proceedings.     In   the   application   tendered   by <\/p>\n
     judgment   debtor,   it   is   contended   that   Respondent   No.2,   whose   bid   was <\/p>\n
                                                                                nd
\n     accepted, was required to deposit 25% of the amount on 2   March itself,
\n                                                                                       rd
\n     however, he was permitted to deposit the amount on next day i.e. 3  March, <\/p>\n
     which is not permissible in accordance with Rule 84 of Order XXI of the Code <\/p>\n
     of   Civil   Procedure.     On   this   count   alone,   according   to   judgment   debtor, <\/p>\n
     auction proceedings are liable to be quashed.  Another objection raised by <\/p>\n
     the   judgment   debtor   is   that   valuation   of   the   property   is   Rs.23,82,938\/-, <\/p>\n
     whereas, same is being sold at meager amount of Rs.4,61,000\/-.  Next ground <\/p>\n
     of challenge is that the property in question is already mortgaged to Central <\/p>\n
     Bank for an amount of Rs.5,00,000\/- borrowed by the judgment debtor and as <\/p>\n
     such, the property is not liable to be put to auction sale.   In this view of the <\/p>\n
     matter, it was urged to the executing Court to set aside the auction sale.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
     6                The application tendered by judgment debtor was opposed by <\/p>\n
     decree   holder  contending   that   first   highest   bidder,  namely  Sitaram   Purohit <\/p>\n
     failed   to   deposit   25%   of   the   amount   on   the   same   day,   as   such,   in <\/p>\n
     accordance with Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the property was <\/p>\n
     put to resale and Respondent No.2, who was second highest bidder, raised <\/p>\n
     his bid to match with offer made by Sitaram Purohit and agreed to purchase <\/p>\n
     the property.   By the time, proceedings were finalised, the Court time was <\/p>\n
     over.  As such, upon request made by Respondent No.2, he was permitted to <\/p>\n
     make deposit of the amount on the next day.  It is contended that there is no <\/p>\n
     infirmity  in   the   procedure   and   as   such,   application  tendered   by  judgment <\/p>\n
     debtor is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     7                The executing court, on consideration of contentions raised by <\/p>\n
     respective   parties,   was   pleased   to   reject   the   application   in   view   of   order <\/p>\n
     passed   on   02.05.2009.     The   order   passed   by   executing   Court,   referred   to <\/p>\n
     above,  is subject matter of challenge in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
     8                Learned   Counsel   appearing   for   petitioner   has   vehemently <\/p>\n
     contended that executing court has erred in permitting resale of the property <\/p>\n
     in   favour   of   Respondent   No.2   and   has   also   committed   an   illegality   in <\/p>\n
     accepting 25% of the amount on next day.   According to learned Counsel <\/p>\n
     appearing   for   petitioner,   the   purchaser   has   to   deposit   25%   amount <\/p>\n
     immediately.   On   failure   to   deposit   the   amount,   the   sale   is   liable   to   be <\/p>\n
     declared as invalid meaning thereby there is no sale in the eye of law at all.\n<\/p>\n
     According to learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, for holding resale, a <\/p>\n
     notification calling fresh bids  is again required to be published and only after <\/p>\n
     following the procedure of inviting afresh bids, the property could be resold.\n<\/p>\n
     It is also contended that valuation of the property is far more than the price <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
     offered by successful bidder and as such, bid finalised needs to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     9                 Learned   Counsel   appearing   for   Respondent   No.1-decree <\/p>\n
     holder   as   well   as   Respondent   No.2   –   purchaser   at   auction   sale,   have <\/p>\n
     opposed contentions raised by petitioner and supported the order passed by <\/p>\n
     executing court.   It is the contention of Respondents that on failure of the <\/p>\n
     purchaser to deposit 25% of the amount, the property is required to be resold <\/p>\n
     forthwith   and   the   procedure   does   not   contemplate   publication   of   fresh <\/p>\n
     proclamation.     The   property   is   required   to   be   resold   then   and   there.     It   is <\/p>\n
     contended   that   as   permitted   by   the   executing   Court,   Respondent   No.2 <\/p>\n
     deposited  the   amount  to  the   extent  of  25%   on  the   next  day.     The   reason <\/p>\n
     behind depositing the amount on the next day is that the Court time was <\/p>\n
     already over and Nazir of the Court was unable to accept the amount.  It is <\/p>\n
     also contended that balance of 75% amount has also been deposited by <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.2 and in such circumstances, it is proper for the executing <\/p>\n
     Court   to   issue   sale   certificate   in   his   favour   and   direct   that   he   be   put   in <\/p>\n
     possession of the property.\n<\/p>\n
     10                I   have   heard   arguments   of   learned   Counsel   for   respective <\/p>\n
     parties and perused the record.  It would be appropriate to refer to Rule 84 of <\/p>\n
     Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure:\n<\/p>\n
                       84 Deposit by purchaser and re-sale on default – (1) On <\/p>\n
                       every sale of immovable property the person declared
\n                       to   be   the   purchaser   shall   pay   immediately   after   such
\n                       declaration   a   deposit   of   twenty-five   per   cent,   on   the
\n                       amount   of   his   purchase-money   to   the   offer   or   other
\n                       person   conducting   the   sale,   and   in   default   of   such
\n                       deposit, the property shall forthwith be re-sold.<\/p>\n
                       (2)      Where the decree-holder is the purchaser and is <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
                      entitled to set-off the purchase-money under rule 72, the
\n                      Court may dispense with the requirements of this rule.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11               So far as instant case is concerned, it is not controverted that <\/p>\n
     Sitaram   Purohit   was   the   successful   bidder   whose   offer   for   purchase   of <\/p>\n
     property for Rs.4,61,000\/- was highest.  It is also borne out from  record that he <\/p>\n
     failed to deposit the amount up to 5.30 p.m. on the given date i.e. 02.03.2009.\n<\/p>\n
     The property was thereafter resold in favour of second highest bidder who <\/p>\n
     agreed to raise his bid to Rs.4,61,000\/-.  The executing Court accepted offer of <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.2 and as  time for deposit of 25% of the amount was over, the <\/p>\n
     Court permitted him to deposit the amount on next day.\n<\/p>\n
     12               Rule   84   contemplates   deposit   of   25%   amount   immediately <\/p>\n
     after   declaration.     The   deposit   of   amount   by   Respondent   No.2,   in   the <\/p>\n
     circumstances noted above, on the next day i.e. on 03.03.2009 cannot be <\/p>\n
     construed   as   delayed   payment.     The   main   objection   raised   by   judgment <\/p>\n
     debtor   that   the   property   needs   to   be   put   to   re-auction   meaning   thereby <\/p>\n
     afresh proclamation needs to be issued, is not acceptable for the reason that <\/p>\n
     Rule 84 contemplates that in default of payment of purchase money by the <\/p>\n
     successful   bidder,   the   property   shall   be   resold   forthwith.     Resale   of   the <\/p>\n
     property immediately i.e. “forthwith”   does not contemplate observance of <\/p>\n
     the procedure, as contemplated by Rule 66 and onwards.\n<\/p>\n
     13               Relying   upon   the   Full   Bench   judgment   in   the   case   of <\/p>\n
     Venkatasubbiar   Vs.   Akkamma,   reported   in   AIR   1930   Madras   761),   the <\/p>\n
     Karnataka High Court, in the matter of Kamaxi Kom Bhikku Shetty Vs. Vaman <\/p>\n
     Thippayya Bhattageri, reported in AIR 1976 Karnataka 3, has observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
                            “As fresh sale proclamation is not called for, the
\n                  re-sale on the same day immediately following on the <\/p>\n
                  abortive   sale   should   be   encouraged   if   circumstances
\n                  justify.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14           The  term  “forthwith”  occurring in  Rule  84  of  Order XXI of  the <\/p>\n
     Code of Civil Procedure has been explained by Nagpur High Court in the <\/p>\n
     matter of  Madhao Narayanrao Ghatate Vs. Mt. Watsalabai w\/o Ganpatrao <\/p>\n
     Deshmukh and another, reported in AIR (35) 1948 Nagpur 142, wherein it is <\/p>\n
     observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
                         “In all cases where the word “forthwith” occurs, it <\/p>\n
                  must   ordinarily   be   understood   to   mean   “within   a
\n                  reasonable   time”.     (See   Maxwell’s   Interpretation   of
\n                  Statutes   Edn.   8,   p.   351,   where   the   following   passage <\/p>\n
                  occurs:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           “When a statute requires that something shall be
\n                           done   “forthwith”,   or   “immediately”,   or   even <\/p>\n
                           “instantly”,   it   would   probably   be   understood   as
\n                           allowing a reasonable time for doing it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     15           Reliance can also be placed on the observations made by the <\/p>\n
     Apex Court in the matter of Manilal Mohanlal Shah & others Vs. Sardar Sayed <\/p>\n
     Ahmed Sayed Mahmad & another, reported in AIR 1954 SC 349:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          “The   provisions   of   O.21   Rules   84,   85   and   86
\n                  requiring   the   deposit   of   25   per   cent   of   the   purchase-
\n                  money immediately, on the person being declared as a
\n                  purchaser, such person not being a decree holder, and
\n                  the payment of the balance within 15 days of the sale,
\n                  are   mandatory   and   upon   non-compliance   with   these
\n                  provisions   there   is   no   sale   at   all.     The   rules   do   not
\n                  contemplate that there can be any sale in favour of a <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
                      stranger purchaser without depositing 25 per cent of the
\n                      purchase-money  in  the   first  instance  and   the   balance <\/p>\n
                      within   15   days.     When   there   is   no   sale   within   the
\n                      contemplation of these rules, there can be no question
\n                      of material irregularity in the conduct of the sale.   Non-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      payment   of   the   price   on   the   part   of   the   defaulting
\n                      purchaser renders the sale proceedings as a complete
\n                      nullity.  The very fact that the court is bound to resell the
\n                      property (Rule 86) in the event of a default shows that <\/p>\n
                      the previous proceedings for sale are completely wiped
\n                      out as if they do not exist in the eye of law.   16 Cal 33,
\n                      Overruled; Remark in AIR 1931 Lah 15, Not approved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     16               It   is   well   established   that   Rule   84   does   not   lay   down <\/p>\n
     requirement of issuing fresh proclamation before conducting resale.  What is <\/p>\n
     contemplated   by   Rule   84   of   Order   XXI   is   that   on   failure   of   purchaser   to <\/p>\n
     deposit 25% of the amount immediately i.e. in the event  of sale rendering <\/p>\n
     abortive, the property shall be forthwith resold and in the instant matter also, <\/p>\n
     having found that Sitaram Purohit, who had offered highest price, failed to <\/p>\n
     deposit 25% of the amount, the property was resold to Respondent No.2.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     17               Learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioner   has   placed <\/p>\n
     heavy   reliance   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   matter   of  Jagdish <\/p>\n
     Radhakisan   Kayasth   Vs.   Ramesh   N.   Wagh   &   others,   reported   in   2001   (3) <\/p>\n
     Bom.C.R. 276.   In the reported matter, the prospective purchaser, whose bid <\/p>\n
     was for an amount of Rs.91,000\/-, had failed to deposit the amount on the <\/p>\n
     date of conduct of auction and his request for extension of time was also <\/p>\n
     rejected by the executing Court on the same day.   He, however, deposited <\/p>\n
     the amount on next day with the executing court.   On the next day, there <\/p>\n
     were two offers made by third parties, one for an amount of Rs.3,50,000\/- and <\/p>\n
     another for an amount of Rs.2,50,000\/-.  The executing Court allowed the third <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
     party,   namely   Ramesh   Choube   to   deposit   Rs.3,50,000\/-   on   or   before <\/p>\n
     04.01.1999 by way of security to establish his bona fides.  The executing Court <\/p>\n
     passed   an   order   to   the   effect   that   considering   price   of   the   property   as <\/p>\n
     contended by judgment debtor to be Rs.7,00,000\/-, in order to safeguard his <\/p>\n
     interest, prayer of judgment debtor was accepted and property was kept for <\/p>\n
     resale on 04.12.1999 at the cost of judgment debtor.  It is further made clear in <\/p>\n
     the order that     if no sale takes place on the given date, the offer of third <\/p>\n
     party would be confirmed.   On failure of third party to deposit amount, the <\/p>\n
     offer of first auction purchaser will be  considered.   It further transpires that <\/p>\n
     Ramesh Choube, who offered to deposit amount of Rs.3,50,000\/-, had failed <\/p>\n
     to deposit the amount and as such, auction in favour of first purchaser had <\/p>\n
     been   confirmed   for   an   amount   of   Rs.91,000\/-.     In   these   circumstances, <\/p>\n
     judgment debtor approached the Court contending that on failure of first <\/p>\n
     auction purchaser to deposit the amount on given date, as contemplated by <\/p>\n
     Rule 84 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, the auction proceedings <\/p>\n
     were rendered null and void and in the eye of law there is no sale of the <\/p>\n
     property.  It was not open for the executing Court to accept the offer of first <\/p>\n
     auction purchaser on deposit of amount on next day when on earlier day, <\/p>\n
     the executing Court refused to extend time.   In the reported matter, with a <\/p>\n
     view to examine bona fides of the judgment debtor, the Court permitted him <\/p>\n
     to   bring   a   prospective   purchaser   who   would   be   willing   to   deposit   highest <\/p>\n
     price.  Accordingly, one Rahul Pethe offered to  purchase the property for Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     3,50,000\/- and in fact deposited sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- in the Court.   He also <\/p>\n
     undertook   to   deposit   further   balance   sum   of   Rs.2,00,000\/-   in   the   event   of <\/p>\n
     acceptance of his bid.   In these circumstances, this Court thought it  fit to <\/p>\n
     examine the case put up by judgment debtor.  One thing, that is required to <\/p>\n
     be taken into account, is that there is a vast difference between offer made <\/p>\n
     by   first   auction   purchaser   and   offer   made   before   this   Court   in   pending <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
     petition.     The   difference   is   more   than   3   \/   4   times.     In   the   instant   matter, <\/p>\n
     petitioner   could   bring   a   prospective   purchaser   who   was   willing   to   offer <\/p>\n
     additional sum of approximately Rs.39,000\/-.  Considering the facts of instant <\/p>\n
     case, ratio laid down in the reported judgment cannot be made applicable.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court, while causing interference in the reported matter, has taken into <\/p>\n
     account provisions of Rule 84 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.  In <\/p>\n
     the reported matter, the prospective purchaser failed to deposit 25% of the <\/p>\n
     amount on the day of conduct of sale and his prayer for extension of time <\/p>\n
     was  turned  down.     It  was,  therefore,  obligatory  for the   executing  Court  to <\/p>\n
     resale the property as mandated by Rule 84.   However, instead of adopting <\/p>\n
     permissible course, the executing court   permitted first auction purchaser to <\/p>\n
     deposit the amount on the next day and same is not permissible in terms of <\/p>\n
     Rule 84.  In paragraph 24 of the judgment, this Court has observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
                                “If the auction purchaser fails to deposit 25% of
\n                       the purchase money as required, the officer conducting <\/p>\n
                       sale has no authority to extend time for such deposit and <\/p>\n
                       in   default   of   such   deposit   the   officer   or   the   person
\n                       conducting   the   sale   has   to   put   the   property   to   resale
\n                       and has to continue with the  auction sale.    There is a
\n                       reason behind such deposit.   Failure to deposit 25% of <\/p>\n
                       the purchase money results in automatic cancellation of
\n                       sale of the property and the same is required to be put
\n                       to resale forthwith so as to avoid further loss of time and
\n                       expenses involved for re-proclamation and republication
\n                       of  such  auction  sale.     The  purpose  is  not only  to  save
\n                       money and time but to realise the sale proceeds of the <\/p>\n
                       property as expeditiously as possible so as to realise the
\n                       fruits of the decree.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     18                Learned   Single   Judge,   while   dealing   with   the   matter,   has <\/p>\n
     further observed in paragraph 26 of the judgment that:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
                              “Having   found   that   the   auction   sale   dated <\/p>\n
                      12.12.1999 was null and void, acceptance of the entire
\n                      amount of Rs.91,000\/- on the next day by the Executing <\/p>\n
                      Court, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be
\n                      legal and valid, as Respondent No.2 auction purchaser
\n                      was  never  declared  to be  the  successful purchaser  as
\n                      contemplated under Rule 84(1).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      In   the   subsequent   paragraph,   this   Court   has   also   taken   into <\/p>\n
     account failure of third party i.e. Ramesh Choube to deposit amount of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     3,50,000\/-.   The executing Court, in the reported judgment, on account of <\/p>\n
     failure of third party to deposit amount offered i.e. Rs.3,50,000\/-, proceeded <\/p>\n
     to confirm the sale in favour of first auction purchaser for Rs.91,000\/-.  This was <\/p>\n
     found by the learned Single Judge to be irregularity and therefore, this Court <\/p>\n
     proceeded to quash the auction also on account of failure of the executing <\/p>\n
     court to extend an opportunity of hearing to the judgment debtor.\n<\/p>\n
     19               In the given set of facts of instant matter, the executing Court <\/p>\n
     has   acted   in   consonance   with   Rule   84   of   Order   XXI   of   the   Code   of   Civil <\/p>\n
     Procedure.  On failure of the first bidder to deposit  amount,  the property was <\/p>\n
     immediately resold to Respondent No.2 and the executing court, on request <\/p>\n
     made by Respondent No.2 because of closure of transactions of the Court <\/p>\n
     on the given date, permitted him to deposit amount on the next day.  In the <\/p>\n
     given set of facts, considering mandate of the Apex Court in Manilal’s case <\/p>\n
     (cited supra),    I am of the view that procedure adopted by executing court <\/p>\n
     is legal and proper and do not call for any interference.   Instant petition is <\/p>\n
     devoid of substance.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
     20             In   the   result,   Petition   stands   dismissed.     Interim   relief   stands <\/p>\n
     vacated.  Rule discharged.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, there <\/p>\n
     shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  (R.M.BORDE)
\n                                                                     JUDGE
\n                                               *******<\/p>\n
     adb\/wp410409a <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:54:56 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar … on 3 May, 2010 Bench: R. M. Borde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4104 OF 2009 Bhagwandas s\/o Chunilal Purohit, age: 46 years, Occ: Business, R\/o Shivajinagar Dalphad, Jalgaon, Tq. and District Jalgaon. Petitioner Versus 1 Machindra […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar ... on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar ... on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-02T05:44:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar … on 3 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-02T05:44:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3056,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar ... on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-02T05:44:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar … on 3 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar ... on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar ... on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-02T05:44:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar … on 3 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-02T05:44:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010"},"wordCount":3056,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010","name":"Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar ... on 3 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-02T05:44:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwandas-vs-2-chandrashekhar-shankar-on-3-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhagwandas vs 2 Chandrashekhar Shankar … on 3 May, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94649"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94649\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}