THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5145 of 2010 Dated:21.01.2011 Between: B.Nagaraja Goud, And others. ...Petitioners And Indian Bank, Balreddipalle, Rep.by its Manager, And another. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5145 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are judgment debtors. They had suffered money decree in O.S.No.200 of 1996. The decree holder took out execution proceedings on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Palamner, and brought the house property of the judgment debtors to sale. The second respondent purchased the property in the Court auction on 26.09.2001 for Rs.65,000/-. He paid certain amount on the same day and by 04.10.2001 he paid entire amount. Subsequent thereto, he filed E.A.No.220 of 2002 seeking condonation of delay in depositing the general stamp duty. The same having been allowed, he deposited the stamp duty on 23.10.2002. The petitioners herein filed E.A.No.8 of 2003 under Order XXI Rule 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to set aside the sale dated 26.09.2001 as null and void. Their plea was that there is a delay in depositing stamp duty within fifteen days as stipulated under Order XXI Rule 85 of CPC. The Court below dismissed the E.A on 31.05.2010, aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC. Counsel for the petitioners relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mudragada Suryanarayanamurti v Southern Agencies[1] wherein it was held that when a full deposit of amount required for general stamp for sale certificate is not deposited by auction purchaser within fifteen days, the sale would be nullity. This decision was rendered when the High Court in exercise of their powers under Section 122 of CPC did not introduce any amendment to Rule 106 of Order XXI. In 1992 vide publication being Roc.No.2475/SO/91 the High Court added sub rule (4) after sub rule (3) of Rule 106 of Order XXI of CPC to the effect that “the provisions of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to all applications under sub-rule (3)”. In Ch.Krishnaiah v Ch.Prasada Rao[2] a Full Bench to which I was one of the members, considered the question whether Order XXI Rule 106(4) of CPC is enforceable in State of Andhra Pradesh in view of subsequent Parliamentary Amendments to CPC by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, and Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002. The unanimous Bench answered the reference holding that, “notwithstanding the repeal provisions in 1999 and 2002 amendments to CPC, Order XXI Rule 106(4) of CPC as inserted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 122 of CPC enables a party to proceedings to file application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay…”. In view of the decision of the Full Bench and also the fact that the second respondent filed E.A.No.220 of 2002 seeking condonation of delay in depositing the general stamp duty, the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21.01.2011 vs [1] AIR 1962 AP 271 [2] 2009 (6) ALT 82 (FB)