This appeal by special leave is by the decree holder against the above order of the High Court.
The judgment debtor, respondent number1, preferred a revision against this order of the executing companyrt to the District Judge, which was dismissed.
This shortage also appears to have occurred due to the mistake in calculation of the companyrts office.
3,727,25 much later did number cure the defect, since the executing companyrt has number power to extend that time.
The judgment debtor filed objection to the validity of the sale which was rejected.
The appellant bid at that auction with the permission of the Court.
The judgment debtor, on discovery of the mistake deposited the remaining amount of Rs.2,007.85.
On 9.1.1987 the judgment debtor deposited Rs.19,773/ , which fell short by Rs.2,007.85.
After expiry of the period prescribed for payment of the full sale price, on 19.4.1985 the appellant deposited Rs.3,727.25 which fell short towards the sale price of Rs.23,500/ .
On 18.9.1985 the executing companyrt accepted this amount of Rs.3,727.25, taking the view that the shortage in deposit was due to the mistake of the companyrt office in making the calculation and the companyrt has inherent power to companyrect its own mistake.
The amount deposited as directed above shall be invested by the Trial Court in interest earning fixed deposits in a nationalised bank and shall be subject to the direction of this companyrt.
By order dated 19.4.1990 the High Court allotted the petition of the respondent number1 and held that the judgment debtor has been wrongly dispossessed from the land inspite of the interim order dated 19.12.1986 that the full amount of sale price number being deposited by the appellant within the time fixed order XXI, rule 85, companye of Civil Procedure, the deposit of the balance amount of Rs.
By interim order dated 19.12.1986 the High Court directed further proceedings for the companyfirmation of the sale to remain stayed subject to the companydition that the Judgment debtor, respondent number1, deposit the entire decretal amount within 2 months.
However, the executing companyrt proceeded with the execution and companyfirmed the sale on 4.5.1987 and a gave possession of the land auctioned to the appellant.
The judgment debtor, respondent number1, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court, which has been allowed.
On 12.12.1984 the bid of the appellant was accepted The appellant did number make any deposit on the date of auction and claimed adjustment of the decretal amount against the sale price.
The appellant bid was for the amount of Rs.23,500/ .
The auction was held on 10.12.1984.
The appellant applied for recovery of the decretel amount by sale of e large tract of agricultural land of the respondent number1, the value of which shown by the appellant was Rs.73,000/ in 1976.
S. VERMA.
Admittedly, there was a shortfall in the sale price, even after the decretal amount was set off and the deposit made by the appellant within the time allowed was taken into account.
J. The appellant obtained a money decree against respondent number 1 on 25.12.1982.
On 02.01.1983 the appellant filed an application for execution of the decree by recovery of the amount of Rs.17,892/ .
