Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4469 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.16312 of 2010]

Annapurna …..Appellant

Versus

Mallikarjun & Anr. …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The matter  relates  to  an Execution  Proceeding in  which  the  Executing  

Court  put  a  house bearing  CTS No.1610/B to  auction  and after  rejecting  the  

objections  raised  by  the  judgment-debtor,  Respondent  no.1  herein,  confirmed  

the Court Sale by issuing Certificate of Sale in favour of the auction purchaser,   

the  Appellant.   Against  the  order  dated  18.12.2004  passed  by  the  Executing  

Court dismissing his application under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil  

Procedure (CPC) the judgment-debtor preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous  

Appeal  No.1/2005  before  Civil  Judge  (Sr.  Division).   That  appeal  was  

dismissed  on 26.7.2006  with  a  finding  that  the  appeal  was  not  maintainable.  

The judgment-debtor then preferred Writ Petition No.10550 of 2006 before the  

1

Page 2

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.16312/10 …. (contd.)

High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga to challenge the order of  

the Executing Court as well as of the Appellate Court.  The High Court, by the  

order under appeal dated 18.2.2010, allowed the writ petition by quashing the  

impugned order  of  the  Executing Court  and remitting  the  matter  back to  the  

Executing  Court  for  fresh  disposal  of  judgment-debtor’s  application  under  

Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC.

3. The  moot  question  of  law  raised  in  this  appeal  does  not  require  this  

Court to go into facts in any detail.   The issue of law raised on behalf of the  

Appellant  is  whether  the  High Court  could  have ignored the  settled law that  

under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 an application to set aside a sale  

under Order XXI Rule 89, CPC has to be filed within 60 days from the date of  

sale and same is the period for making the required deposit.

4. On facts,  it  is  sufficient to notice that after success in O.S.No.26/1969,  

the  decree-holder  instituted  execution  proceedings  in  E.P.No.17/1993.   The  

property in question was sold through Court Sale on 7.8.2004.  The judgment-

debtor filed an application under Order XXI Rule 89, CPC on 3.9.2004 to set  

aside  the  Court  Sale  along  with  an  application  to  appoint  a  Court  

Commissioner to find out the market value of the sold property.  Decree-holder  

filed  objections  and  thereafter  by  different  orders  passed  on  18.12.2004  the  

Executing  Court  rejected  the  applications  of  the  judgment-debtor  and  issued  

Certificate  of  Sale  in  favour  of  the  auction  purchaser.   On  15.1.2005,  the  

Executing Court closed the Execution Petition as fully satisfied.  Admittedly, at  

no point of time, the  judgment-debtor  made  any  deposit as required by Order  

2

Page 3

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.16312/10 …. (contd.)

XXI Rule 89, CPC before the Executing Court.  As noticed earlier, judgment-

debtor’s Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.  In the Writ  

Petition  preferred  by  him,  the  High  Court  agreed  that  Miscellaneous  Appeal  

was  not  maintainable  but  primarily  because  the  judgment-debtor,  on  an  

opportunity given by the Writ Court, had deposited Rs.25,000/- over and above  

the  amount  for  which  the  property  was  sold,  impugned  order  was  passed  to  

remit  the  matter  back  to  the  Executing  Court  for  fresh  disposal  of  the  

application  under  Order  XXI  Rule  89  of  the  CPC  with  liberty  to  the  writ  

petitioner to place available materials before the Executing Court to show that  

the value of the property is more than the price obtained in the Court auction.

6. According to learned counsel for the Appellant, the High Court erred in  

ignoring the relevant provisions such as Rules 89 and 92 of Order XXI of the  

CPC and Article 127 of the Limitation Act otherwise it would have come to the  

only possible conclusion that in absence of required deposit being made within  

60  days,  the  Executing  Court  had  no  option  but  to  reject  the  petition  under  

Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel  

placed reliance upon a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Karan  

Gupta v. J.S. Exim Ltd. & Ors. (2012) 13 SCC 568 and a Constitution Bench  

judgment  in  the  case  of  Dadi  Jagannadham v.  Jammlu  Ramulu  &  Ors.  

(2001)  7 SCC 71 which has  been referred  to  and relied  upon in  the  case  of  

Ram Karan Gupta (supra).   

7. On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  Respondent  no.1,  judgment-  

debtor, submitted that  the High  Court has  adopted a just and proper course to  

3

Page 4

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.16312/10 …. (contd.)

give  another  chance  to  the  judgment-debtor  to  prove  his  objection  that  the  

property sold in the court auction was not valued properly.  He submitted that  

such a course of action was warranted by the peculiar facts and circumstances  

of the case.

7. A careful  perusal  of  the provisions  in Rules  89 and 92 of  Order XXI,  

CPC and  Article  127  of  the  Limitation  Act  leaves  no  manner  of  doubt  that  

although  Order  XXI  Rule  89,  CPC does  not  prescribe  any  period  either  for  

making the  application or  the  required deposit,  Article  127 of  the  Limitation  

Act  now prescribes  60  days  as  the  period  within  which  such  an  application  

should be made.  In absence of any separate period prescribed for making the  

deposit,  as  per  judgment  of  the  Constitution  Bench  in  the  case  of  Jammlu  

Ramulu (supra)  the  time  to  make  the  deposit  and  that  for  making  the  

application would be the same.

8. In  the  case  of  Ram  Karan  Gupta (supra),  it  has  been  held,  after  

considering the Constitution Bench judgment and other relevant case laws, that  

deposit of the requisite amount in the court is a condition precedent or a  sine  

qua  non to  application  for  setting  aside  the  execution  of  sale  and  such  an  

amount  must  be  deposited  within  the  prescribed  time  for  making  the  

application otherwise the application must be dismissed.

9. In view of  the  settled law on the  issue as  noted above,  in  this  case  it  

must be held that the High court committed grave error of law in not noticing  

the relevant provisions of CPC and the Limitation Act and in allowing the Writ  

Petition for re-consideration of the petition under Order XXI Rule 89, CPC.  In  

4

Page 5

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.16312/10 …. (contd.)

absence  of  required  deposit  made  by  the  judgment-debtor  within  the  time  

mandated  by  law,  such  an  exercise  would  be  only  an  exercise  in  futility  

because the Executing Court does not have any option but to reject the petition.  

In such a situation,  the judgment under appeal is  set  aside and the Appeal is  

allowed  with  a  cost  of  Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees  Ten  Thousand)  payable  by  

Respondent no.1 to the Appellant.

……………………………J. [ANIL R. DAVE]

……………………………J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi. April 11, 2014.

5