1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6739 of 2011. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.P.D.Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.09.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner was an auction purchaser. He deposited amount of 25% on the very day but did not deposit the remaining 75% within the stipulated period of fifteen days as is required U/o 21 Rule 85 of the C.P.C. The petitioner instead filed an application submitting that there is encumbrance over the said property and as such unless and until the encumbrance is removed, he is not liable to deposit the amount. Thereafter, filed an application Exh.76 stating that the land auctioned to him should be given without encumbrance or the auction should be cancelled and his amount should be refunded. The trial Court on 20.2.2010, passed order 2 directing refund of amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the bidder. The petitioner filed an application Exh.77 that he should be granted time to deposit the amount. The trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the property was put to auction, it was presumed that the property would be free from encumbrances. As such on getting knowledge of the encumbrance, the petitioner filed an application for removal of the encumbrance. The said application was filed in good faith but subsequently the petitioner has filed an application to purchase the property along with encumbrance. The same should have been allowed. According to the learned counsel, even the Court did not pass any orders on the application Exh.76 for five (5) years. In view of that the petitioner would not be bound by the averments made in application Exh.76, five years back. 4. Once the property is auctioned then as per provisions of Order 2l Rule 84 and U/o 21 Rule 85 of the C.P.C. 25% amount has to be deposited immediately and remaining 75% has to be deposited within 15 days. The Apex Court in "Manilal Mohanlal Shah and others Vs. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad and another" reported in AIR 1954 Supreme Court 349, has held that even the Court does not have jurisdiction to extend the time. 3 5. Be that as it may. Even the amount was not deposited for more than 5 years. On the contrary, the application was made to refund the amount. The Court passed an order to refund the amount. As such the subsequent prayer of the petitioner could not have been considered. 6. No error has been committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.12.09.2011. asp/office/wp6739.11 4