HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3373 OF 2009 DATE:18-11-2011 BETWEEN Kaja Gangadhara Rao …Petitioner AND Vijja Daaradha Ramaiah and another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3373 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner-auction purchaser filed this revision against the orders of Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram in E.A.No.99 of 2008 in E.P.No.50 of 2006 in O.S.No.3491 of 2002 dated 25.6.2009. Petitioner is the highest bidder in the auction conducted for sale of the schedule property in E.P.No.50 of 2006 and the sale was knocked down in his favour for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-, but he failed to deposit the value of sale certificate stamps (N.J.) of Rs.700/- within 15 days as per Order 21 Rule 85 C.P.C. Therefore, the executing Court by order dated 7.5.2008 made an endorsement to the effect that since the auction purchaser (petitioner herein) did not deposit the sale certificate stamp amount within 15 days after the sale, the sale cannot be confirmed and the same is not valid under law and accordingly ordered for the steps to be taken. In view of the said orders, petitioner herein filed the impugned E.A. seeking to set aside the order dated 7.5.2008 and to confirm the sale held on 5.3.2008 in respect of the E.P. schedule property. On dismissal of the same, the present revision has been filed. First respondent-decree holder though was served, ha snot put up appearance, and whereas the judgment debtor-second respondent herein is not served so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that the sale already held in respect of the E.P. schedule property cannot be set aside for the reason of non- deposit of the stamps amount, which is a step subsequent to conducting of the sale and the same will not constitute a material irregularity as held by this court in G.Venkata Reddy v. B.Venkata Reddy and another (2010 (5) ALD 821). This Court does not find any merit in the said contention for the simple reason that the facts in the case relied upon by the petitioner are entirely different. On failure to depositing the stamps amount by the petitioner therein, the judgment debtor filed E.A. under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. to set aside the sale conducted, which was initially allowed and the same was set aside by the High Court in the revision and remanded the matter to hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders and on such remand also, the executing Court set aside the sale. While setting aside the said order, it was held that it will not fall under material irregularity under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC for setting aside the sale. It was held that the judgment debtor cannot plead that it is a material irregularity for setting aside the sale. The same is not the situation in the case no hand. Order 21 Rule 85 contemplates for payment of full amount of purchase- money, which reads thus: “85. Time for payment in full of purchase-money and of stamp certificate of sale:- The full amount of purchase-money payable and the general stamp for the certificate under Rule 94 or the amount required for such stamp, shall be deposited into Court by the purchaser before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property. Provided that in calculating the amount of purchase-money to be so deposited the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he may be entitled under Rule 72.” Whereas Order 21 Rule 86 CPC mandates the procedure in default of payment. According to said provision, in default of payment within the period mentioned under Rule 85, the deposit may, if the Court thinks fit, after defraying the expenses of the sale, be forfeited to the Government, and the property shall be re-sold, and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may subsequently be sold. So Order 21 Rule 86 is mandatory in nature and there is no option except to re-sale on failure of purchaser to deposit the purchase- money and of stamp certificate of sale and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may subsequently be sold. Therefore, the executing Court rightly dismissed the impugned E.A. filed for setting aside the order dated 7.5.2008, which does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to move the executing Court for restricting of the restricting of the forfeiture amount, if law permits. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 18, 2011 Tsr.