1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.49 OF 2007 Shri Suryakant Baban Kale .... Applicant Vs. Smt. Bhagyawanti Madhav Unde .... Respondents & Anr. Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar h/for Mr. Madhav Jamdar for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J Date : 11th September, 2008 P.C. 1. This Civil Revision Application is preferred to challenge the order dated 3rd March,2007 passed on the application Exhibit 33 in Darkhast Proceedings. The Darkhast Proceedings had been taken out for execution of the order of maintenance granted in favour of the respondents. Respondent no.2, the husband has been absconding since last several years. The proceedings have been served upon him by substituted service. 2. By way of the execution of the decree of maintenance, the property belonging to respondent no.2 was sold in auction. The applicant is an auction purchaser of the property. On the date of the auction, 2 he deposited 1/4th of the purchase value i.e. Rs.1,32,000/- in the Court. The balance amount of Rs.3,93,000/- was to be deposited in the court. Since the appellant himself was unwell and since he was under the bonafide mistake, as regards the time within it the amount was to be deposited, he did not deposit the same within a period of 15 days from the date of the sale. However, seven days thereafter i.e. on 3rd March, 2007, he made an application to the trial Court for condoning the delay in depositing the balance purchase money and to complete the sale. This application was not opposed by the decree holder. However, the trial Court by the impugned order rejected the same on the ground that the appellant has failed to make out a case either of bonafide mistake or mis-calculation to get benefit of the Bombay Amendment to Order 21, Rule 85 the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. According to the applicant, there was bonafide mistake as regards the number of days within which he was to deposit the balance amount. This statement made by him in the application for condonation of delay is neither disputed not controverted by anybody. In fact in the present proceedings, respondent no. 1, the decree holder is hard pressed for receiving the 3 maintenance amount, she being an elder lady suffering from ailments and bed ridden. She has been living at the mercy of some relatives. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, the trial Court ought to have condoned the delay and allowed the auction purchaser to deposit the balance amount in the Court and complete the execution proceedings. 4. Hence, the Civil Revision Application is allowed. 5. The impugned order dated 3rd March, 2007 is set aside. The application at Exhibit 33 is allowed. 6. The applicant to deposit the balance amount in the trial Court within a period of three weeks from today. 7. The trial Court shall complete the proceedings as regards the auction sale within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the deposit. 8. Respondent no.1 has filed an application for liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant in the Court. This application needs to be 4 made before the trial Court. 9. The trial Court to act upon authenticated copy of the order. (SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J)