CR No.7948 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7948 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:06.12.2010. Virsa Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sukhwinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. N.S.Bhinder, Advocate, for the petitioner. ****** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the orders Annexures P-8 and P-9. The petitioner in this case is the auction purchaser. Admittedly, the Court had issued warrant with regard to sale of 48 Kanals of land, but Naib Tehsildar Khuian Sarwar put to sale 100 Kanals 15 Marlas of land of the judgment debtor and the auction took place on 09.07.2004, whereas the auction money was paid by the petitioner on 26.08.2004. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that there was irregularity and fraud in the auction of the property in question as there was no order by the Court to sell land measuring 100 Kanals 15 Marlas, therefore, the sale was conducted beyond the order of the Court. Secondly, the auction was contrary to Order 21 Rules 84 and 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] because as per Order 21 Rule 84 of the CPC, the auction purchaser has to deposit 25% of the auction amount at the time of fall of hammer and as per Order 21 Rule 85 of the CPC, the balance auction amount has to be paid by the purchaser into the Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property. CR No.7948 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** In the present case, the auction had taken place on 09.07.2004, whereas the remaining sale consideration was paid after the expiry of 15 days which could not be condoned as the provisions have been held to be mandatory. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he is in possession of the suit property and there is an agreement to sell in his favour. However the auction in which the petitioner has been held to be the highest bidder was not conducted in accordance with the Order 21 Rules 64, 84 and 85 of the CPC. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. December 06, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod JUDGE