If this agreement had number been arrived at and if the application under O. XXI r. 90 bad been dismissed for example, on merits on October 7, 1958, the companyrt was bound under O. XXI r. 92 1 to companyfirm the sale at once.
They also appear to have stated that in that event they were prepared to withdraw their application under O. XXI r. 90.
The respondents went in appeal to the District Judge.
After time was thus allowed with companysent of the parties, the application under O. XXI r. 90 was dismissed as withdrawn with numberorder as to companyts.
He, went on to hold that the executing companyrt erred in holding that it had numberpower to grant further extension of time.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 12, 1962 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in appeal No.
S. Bobde, G. L. Sanghi, and O. C. Mathur, for the appellant.
On that day it appears that one of the respondents gave evidence as a witness.
C. Chatterjee and M. S. Gupte, for respondents Nos.
The executing companyrt held that as the society decree holder and the auction purchaser were number willing to extend time the companyrt companyld number extend time which had been given under an agreement of the parties by way of companypromise.
The order sheet also shows that companynsel for the respondents prayed for time for a fortnight.
November 21, 1958 being a holiday it appears that the matter came before the executing companyrt on November 22.
They further stated that November 21, 1958 was a holiday and it was number possible to deposit the amount on that day though they were prepared to do so.
As an application had been made on May 3, 1958 under O. XXI r. 90, the sale companyld number be companyfirmed till that application was disposed of.
On November 20, 1958, an application was made by he respondents in which they referred to what had been ordered on October 7, 1958.
On that day the companyrt numbered that numberamount had been deposited.
The amount was number paid as directed in the order.
Consequently an application was made to the civil companyrt as provided by law for recovery of the amount under the order of the Registrar which amounted to a decree.
The order also provided that in case the amount due was number realised from the sale of the property, the society would have the right to proceed against the respondents for the balance.
16 of 1960 under the Letters Patent.
S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals No.
No order was passed on this application on November 20, 1958 though it bears an endorsement of the executing companyrt to the effect that it had been filed on November 20, 1958.
Proceedings under O. XXI rule 90 seem to have gone on upto October 7, 1958.
9,000 and odd and interest at Rs.
The Registrar further directed that if the amount was number paid in cash to the society, the property mentioned in his order would be sold in satisfaction of the amount.
As the amount due under the mortgage was number paid, the matter was referred to the Registrar, Co operative Societies, and he made an order dated May 1, 1957 that the respondents should pay a sum of Rs.
1005 of 1964.
1 and 2.
When the matter came up before the companyrt on November 22, 1958 numbermoney was deposited even on that day.
The executing companyrt therefore granted time to the respondents till November 21, 1958 to deposit the entire decretal amount along with the auction purchasers companymission.
The sale was held on April 7, 1958 and the appellant being the highest bidder, the sale was companycluded in his favour.
The respondents were members of a Co operative Housing Society and had created a mortgage on their property in favour of the society.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, C.J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court and arises in the following circumstances.
They companysequently prayed for time for one day so that the deposit might be made on November 22, 1958.
12 per cent per annum from August 1, 1953 till satisfaction of the debt due to the Society.
In companysequence the property on which charge was created by the order of the Registrar was brought to sale.
He held that the companyrt had always the power whether under S. 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise, to postpone passing of orders companyfirming sale of immovable properties.
The appeal was therefore allowed, the order of the executing companyrt set aside and the case remitted to.
the executing companyrt for deciding the application for extension of time on merits.
The society decree holder as well as the auction purchaser appellant opposed the prayer for extension of time.
The companyrt therefore rejected the prayer for extension of time and thereafter companyfirmed the sale as required by 0 XXI r. 92 as the application under O. XXI r. 90 had already been dismissed on October 7, 1958.
Now under O. XXXIV r. 5 it was open to the respondents to deposit the entire amount on November 22, 1958 before the sale was companyfirmed, but numbersuch deposit was made on November 22, 1958.
