In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 19367-CII of 2009 and C.R. No. 1156 of 2009 Date of decision: November 23, 2009 Saudagar Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Desraj and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. Suresh Goyal, Advocate for the respondent No.2. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.12.2008 passed by the Lok Adalat, Dhuri confirming the sale of the property which was put to auction on 5.3.2007 in favour of the petitioner. It is not disputed between the parties that no lien of the auction purchaser is created in the property till the sale is confirmed, therefore, since the auction has been set aside by the trial court, the auction purchaser could only withdraw his money along with other emoluments as well as interest as provided under the Code. The objection as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the auction purchaser had deposited the amount within 30 days, therefore, the sale could not be set aside without his consent. The matter with regard to time limit of depositing the amount was between the judgment debtor and the decree holder and the decree holder could waive off the liability of the judgment debtor to deposit the decretal amount within prescribed period. Here in this case, neither the court had confirmed the sale immediately after the expiry of 30 days from the date of auction nor the decree holder raised objection to confirm the sale on failure to deposit the amount, therefore, observations made in cases Suman Kumar vs. Gram Panchayat Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Jagadhri, Through its Sarpanch, Shri Raj Kumar, 1992 (1) PLR 363 and P.K. Unni vs. Nirmala Industries and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 933 are not applicable to Civil Revision No. 1156 of 2009 -2- the facts of the present case. In none of the judgments, it is mentioned that on failure to deposit the decretal amount within 30 days by the judgment debtor, the sale was automatically confirmed. There was no bar to the court to confirm the sale on failure to deposit the amount by the judgment debtor within period prescribed under Order XXI Rule 89 and 92 (2) of the Code. Sale in this case was effected on 5.3.2007 and the judgment debtor moved the application for depositing the decretal amount in the court on 7.3.2007 and he actually deposited the amount on 9.8.2008. The judgment delivered in P.K. Unni's case (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, refers to filing of the application within 30 days and not with regard to deposit of the amount in the court. The relevant extract of the observations made by the Apex Court in P.K. Unni's case (supra) reads as under :- “Prior to the Amendment Act 104 of 1976, the period prescribed by Article 127 was 30 days. As a result of the amendment, a period of 60 days is provided for making an application to set aside a sale. It is important to remember that Article 127 appears in Part I of Third Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, dealing exclusively with applications. Article 127 thus relates solely to the making of an application and not to a deposit. This, Article governs application made under Rules 90 and 91 as well.” In these circumstances, no iota of doubt remains in my mind to hold that Order XXI Rule 89 and 92 (2) refers to moving of the application for setting aside of the sale and not to actual deposit. From the aforesaid circumstances, it could clearly be concluded that the auction purchaser before the sale was confirmed could not be treated as party to that compromise and the same could be effected in his absence particularly when amount of the sale has already been deposited by the judgment debtor as per Rule 89 and 92 (2) of Order XXI of the Code. As such, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. November 23, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge