Sale - Execution - Vitiate

Gas Point Petroleum India Limited vs. Rajendra Marothi & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.  619 of 2023]

Whether non­compliance with provisions of Order 21 Rule 84 and Order 21 Rule 85 vitiate sale?

RELEVANT PARAGRAPH

8.2 The decision of this Court in the case of Manilal Mohanlal Shah (supra) fell for consideration before this Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Rosali  V. (supra).  In the said decision this Court interpreted the word “immediately” in Order 21 Rule 84. In the said decision, this Court considered paragraph 11 of the decision in the case of Manilal Mohanlal Shah (supra) in paragraph 20 as under:­  

“20. What would be the meaning of the term “immediately” came up for consideration before this Court, as noticed hereinbefore, in Manilal Mohanlal Shah [AIR 1954 SC 349] wherein it was held : (AIR pp. 351­52, para 11)
Having examined the language of the relevant rules and the judicial decisions bearing upon the subject we are of opinion that the provisions of the rules requiring the deposit of 25 per cent. of the purchase-money immediately on the person being declared as a purchaser and the payment of the balance within 15 days of the sale are mandatory and upon non-compliance with these provisions there is no sale at all. The rules do not contemplate that there can be any sale in favour of a purchaser without depositing 25 per cent. of the purchase-money in the first instance and the balance within 15 days. When there is no sale within the contemplation of these rules, there can be no question of material irregularity in the conduct of the sale. Non- payment of the price on the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceedings as a complete nullity. The very fact that the Court is bound to resell the property in the event of a default shows that the previous proceedings for sale are completely wiped out as if they do not exist in the eye of law. We hold, therefore, that in the circumstances of the present case there was no sale and the purchasers acquired. no rights at all.

 

8.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, it is evident that there is non­compliance of mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 84 and Order 21 Rule 85 and therefore, the sale was vitiated.