Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt. Jyotsana vs M/S. Hriday Credit Cooperative Society … on 9 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:16858]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6723/2026
Smt. Jyotsana W/o Late Shri Mukesh, Aged About 53 Years,
Resident Of 14, R.k. Puram, Titardi, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s. Hriday Credit Cooperative Society, Through Manager,
11-B, Vinayak Complex, Durga Nursery Road, Udaipur.
2. Mukesh S/o Shri Shanti Lal, Through His Legal
Representatives -
3. Devesh S/o Late Shri Mukesh, Resident Of Village Pula,
Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur.
4. Priyanka D/o Late Shri Mukesh W/o Kaustubh, Resident
Of Village Pula, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur.
5. Shanti Lal S/o Shri Vardichand, Resident Of 14, R.k.
Puram, Titardi, Udaipur.
6. Kamal S/o Shri Shanti Lal, Resident Of 13, Anand Vihar,
Sector No. 4, Hiran Magri, Udaipur.
7. Smt. Kaushalya W/o Shri Kamal Suhalka, Resident Of 13,
Anand Vihar, Sector No. 4, Hiran Magri, Udaipur.
8. Dehli Wale Real State, Through Anil Wadhwani.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Adv. With
Mr. Om Prakash Kumavat &
Mr. Hardik Kachhawa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. James Bedi through V.C.,
Mr. Tanay Sharma & Mr. Arpit Saxena
for respondent No. 1
Dr. Mohit Singhvi for respondent No.
6
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
09/04/2026
The present writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (2 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]
the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned Commercial
Court, Udaipur in Civil Execution Case No.166/2020, whereby the
application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rules 85, 86
and 87 CPC has been rejected.
The factual matrix, in brief, as set out in the writ petition is
that an ex parte arbitral award dated 19.01.2019 came to be
passed against the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 4,
pursuant to which execution proceedings were initiated by the
respondent no.1-decree-holder. On 11.05.2023, the petitioner
instituted proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 along with an application under section 5 of
the Limitation act, seeking to set aside the ex parte arbitral award,
however, the learned Commercial Court, Udaipur dismissed the
petitioner’s petition on the ground of Limitation. Thereafter, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court which came to be
registered as D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 949/2024, in which, the
learned Division Bench of this Court while issuing notice to the
respondent no. 1, granted interim stay on the interest component
of the impugned order dated 21.02.2024. The order dated
22.03.2024 is reproduced hereinunder as:
“1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Issue notice to the respondent no. 1 only, returnable on
15.04.2024.
3. In the meanwhile, the interest component of the impugned order
dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned Commercial Court, Udaipur
shall remain stayed.”
The said appeal was dismissed by learned Division Bench of
this Court on 21.01.2026. Moreover, in the course of execution,
the subject property was put to auction on 03.04.2024 and
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (3 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]
respondent No.6 was declared the successful auction purchaser
upon depositing 25% of the bid amount on the date of auction.
The controversy in the present writ petition revolves around the
alleged failure of the auction purchaser to deposit the remaining
75% of the sale consideration within the period prescribed under
It is not in dispute that prior to filing the application under
Order XXI Rules 85, 86 and 87 CPC, the petitioner had also
challenged the auction proceedings by filing objections on
16.02.2026 under Order XXI Rules 90, 92 and 93 read with
Section 47 CPC, inter alia, on the grounds of alleged material
irregularity in the conduct of the auction, lack of notice,
undervaluation and resulting prejudice. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed a separate application dated 06.03.2026 under Order XXI
Rules 85, 86 and 87 CPC seeking annulment of the auction on the
ground that the balance sale consideration had not been deposited
within 15 days from the date of auction.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
contended that the requirement under Order XXI Rule 85 CPC is
mandatory and admits of no relaxation. It is submitted that once
the balance 75% was not deposited within 15 days from the date
of auction i.e. 03.04.2024, the consequences under Order XXI
Rule 86 CPC automatically followed and the learned Executing
Court had no discretion to validate the sale. It is further urged
that the subsequent deposit made in February, 2026 could not
cure the initial statutory default, and that the application under
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (4 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]
Order XXI Rules 85, 86 and 87 CPC was independent of the earlier
objections under Order XXI Rules 90, 92 and 93 CPC.
Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgments
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to contend that failure to
deposit 75% of the bid amount within the prescribed time renders
the auction invalid under Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 of the CPC:
• Manilal Mohanlal Shah & Ors vs. Sardar Sayed
Ahmed Sayed Mahmad & Anr.; 1954 AIR 349
• Gas Point Petroleum India Limited vs. Rajendra
Marothi & Ors.; (2023) 6 SCC 391
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has filed
his reply wherein while opposing the present writ petition he has
submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with
clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It is pointed out
that the petitioner herself had filed an application before the
learned Executing Court on 04.04.2024 asserting that the
execution proceedings stood stayed pursuant to the order passed
by this Court on 22.03.2024, and on the basis of such
representation, the learned Executing Court stayed the execution
proceedings. It is further stated that the respondent no. 6
submitted applications dated 09.05.2024 and 04.12.2024 before
the learned Executing Court seeking permission to deposit the
remaining 75% of the amount, however, the petitioner reiterated
the said stand of interim order granted by the learned Division
Bench of this Court in her reply dated 16.12.2024, thereby
contributed to the delay in depositing of the balance amount. The
relevant portion of the reply is stated hereinunder as:
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (5 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]“…ऐसी स्थिति में माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा इन तथ्यों को
ध्यान में रख कर ही इस बिन्दु पर दिनां क 22.03.2024 को स्थगन
आदे श पारित किया है , जिसका बोली दाता द्वारा अर्थ का अनर्थ बना दिया
गया है और यह वर्णित किया जा रहा है कि केवल ब्याज की राशि के सम्बन्ध
में आदे श दिया गया है , जबकि माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय का
आदे श पू र्ण तया स्पष्ट है । ऐसी स्थिति में कोई अग्रिम कार्यवाही किया जानः
सम्भव नही ं है ।
अतः प्रार्थना है कि बोली द्वारा प्रस्तु त प्रार्थना पत्र माननीय राजस्थान उच्च
न्यायालय के आदे श की अनुपालना में इसी स्तर पर खारिज किए जाने का
आदे श प्रदान फरमावे ।”
It is thus contended that the petitioner cannot now be
permitted to take a contrary stand and invoke the rigour of Order
XXI Rule 85 CPC. It is also submitted that after dismissal of the
appeal by this Court on 21.01.2026, the execution proceedings
were revived and the learned Executing Court granted time to the
auction purchaser to deposit the balance amount, which has been
duly complied with.
Learned counsel while relying upon the judgement passed by
a co-ordinate bench of this Court has stated that the petitioner
has not approached this Court with clean hands and has
suppressed material facts, therefore, the present writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
• Heera Lal Saini & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19073/2024Learned counsel for respondent no. 6, while opposing the
present writ petition, submitted that the learned trial Court, vide
order dated 13.03.2026, has dismissed the applications filed by
the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with
Order XXI Rules 90, 92, and 93 along with Section 47 of the Code
of Civil Procedure (CPC). Furthermore, the learned trial Court also
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (6 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]dismissed the application filed under Order XXI Rules 85, 86, and
87 CPC.
It was further submitted that respondent no. 6 has filed an
application dated 27.03.2026 stating that the demand draft (DD)
for the remaining amount was deposited on 17.02.2026. However,
due to a clerical error in the DD and closure of banking hours, the
learned trial Court directed that the same be deposited on
18.02.2026. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the said deposit
be treated as having been made on 17.02.2026.
Heard and considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on
record.
Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the relevant provisions of Order XXI for ready
reference:
“85. Time for payment in full of purchase money.–The full amount
of purchase-money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into
Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of
the property: Provided that, in calculating the amount to be so paid
into Court, the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to
which he may be entitled under rule 72.
86. Procedure in default of payment.–In default of payment within
the period mentioned in the last preceding rule, 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.
87. Notification on re-sale.–Every re-sale of immovable property, in
default of payment of the purchase-money within the period allowed
for such payment, shall be made after the issue of fresh proclamation
in the manner and for the period hereinbefore prescribed for the
sale.
[90. Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud.
–(1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a
decree, the decree-holder, or the purchaser, or any other person
entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose
interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (7 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in
publishing or conducting it. (2) No sale shall be set aside on the
ground of irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless,
upon the facts proved, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has
sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud.
(3) No application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be
entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken
on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn
up. Explanation.–The mere absence of, or defect in, attachment of
the property sold shall not, by itself, be a ground for setting aside a
sale under this rule.
92. Sale when to become absolute or be set aside.–(1) Where no
application is made under rule 89, rule 90 or rule 91, or where such
application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order
confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute:
Provided that, where any property is sold in execution of a decree
pending the final disposal of any claim to, or any objection to the
attachment of, such property, the Court shall not confirm such sale
until the final disposal of such claim or objection. (2) Where such
application is made and allowed, and where, in the case of an
application-under rule 89, the deposit required by that rule is made
within [sixty days] from the date of sale, [or in cases where the
amount deposited under rule 89 is found to be deficient owing to any
clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor and such
deficiency has been made good within such time as may be fixed by
the Court, the Court shall make an order setting aside the sale]:
Provided that no order shall be made unless notice of the application
has been given to all persons affected thereby: [Provided further that
the deposit under this sub-rule may be made within sixty days in all
such cases where the period of thirty days, within which the deposit
had to be made, has not expired before the commencement of the
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002. (3) No suit to set
aside an order made under this rule shall be brought by any person
against whom such order is made. [(4) Where a third party challenges
the judgment-debtor’s title by filing a suit against the
auctionpurchaser, the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor shall be
necessary parties to the suit. (5) If the suit referred to in sub-rule (4)
is decreed, the Court shall direct the decree-holder to refund the
money to the auction-purchaser, and where such an order is passed
the execution proceeding in which the sale had been held shall, unless
the Court otherwise directs, be revived at the stage at which the sale
was ordered.
93. Return of purchaser-money in certain cases.–Where a sale of
immovable property is set aside under rule 92, the purchaser shall be
entitled to an order for repayment of his purchase-money, with or
without interest as the Court may direct, against any person to whom
it has been paid.”
At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the petitioner
had already availed the remedy of challenging the auction
proceedings by filing objections under Order XXI Rules 90, 92 and
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (8 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]
93 CPC. The said provisions specifically deal with setting aside of
sale on grounds of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or
conducting the sale and the consequential injury. The petitioner
raised all possible grounds relating to the validity of the auction,
including lack of notice, undervaluation and prejudice. The
petitioner, thereafter chose to file a fresh application under Order
XXI Rules 85, 86 and 87 CPC seeking to invalidate the very same
auction on a different ground.
Though it is correct that the grounds under Order XXI Rules
85 and 86 CPC operate in a distinct field, in the facts of the
present case, the successive invocation of different provisions to
assail the same auction proceedings cannot be viewed in isolation
from the conduct of the petitioner. The record clearly indicates
that the petitioner has been consistently attempting to obstruct
the execution proceedings by adopting different procedural routes
after having failed in earlier challenges.
More importantly, the conduct of the petitioner in the present
case assumes significance. Immediately after the auction dated
03.04.2024, the petitioner approached the learned Executing
Court by way of an application dated 04.04.2024 asserting that
the execution proceedings stood stayed pursuant to the order
passed by this Court. Acting upon such representation, the
learned Executing Court stayed further proceedings. The petitioner
thereafter reiterated the same in her reply dated 16.12.2024 to
the application filed by the auction purchaser. Having taken such a
stand before the learned Executing Court and having contributed
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (9 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]
to the continuation of the stay of proceedings, the petitioner
cannot now be permitted to turn around and contend that the
statutory period under Order XXI Rule 85 CPC continued to run
unaffected.
The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Heera Lal
(Supra) while stating that the petitioner must disclose all material
facts truthfully and completely has held that:
“11.The High Court functions not only as a court of law but also as a
court of equity. Therefore, anyone seeking equitable relief under Article
226 of the Constitution is obligated to present all relevant facts before
the Court fully and truthfully. The foremost condition for invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court is that the
petitioner must approach the Court with clean hands. Concealment or
falsehood disqualifies a party not only from seeking equitable relief but
also from being heard on the merits of the case. The foundation of writ
jurisdiction lies in the disclosure of true, complete, and accurate facts.
It is a well-established principle that if essential facts are suppressed,
misrepresented, or presented dishonestly, the effective functioning of
writ courts would be undermined. Consequently, if a litigant fails to
make full disclosure or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court is
justified in dismissing the petition without examining its merits. This
rule has been developed in the larger public interest to prevent
unscrupulous litigants from misusing the judicial process through
deception.
11.1 This view finds support from the various judgments delivered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court denying indulgence to a party not approaching
the Court with clean hands.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of
U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 has held as under :-
“1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic
values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa”(non-
violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi
guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life.
Truth constituted an integral part of thejustice-delivery
system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and
the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However, post-
Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value
system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos
and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that
those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the
court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped
up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect
for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical
means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (10 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts
have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well
established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the
stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice
with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or
final.”
In the case of Tomorrow land Ltd. v. Housing & Urban
Development Corpn. Ltd., (2025) 4 SCC 19, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed as under :-
“55. The material on record sufficiently indicates that the
appellant did not approach the Court with clean hands and
instead attempted to hoodwink the judicial process by
creating a facade to subterfuge their inability to meet their
contractual obligations. We are constrained to observe that
the intent of the appellant throughout appears to be that of
prolonging the litigation to cloak its impecuniousness.
56. It needs no emphasis that whosoever comes to the court
claiming equity, must come with clean hands. The
expression “clean hands” connotes that the suitor or the
defendant have not concealed material facts from the court
and there is no attempt by them to secure illegitimate gains.
Any contrary conduct must warrant turning down relief to
such a party, owing to it not acting in good faith and
beguiling the court with a view to secure undue gain. A
court of law cannot be the abettor of inequity by siding with
the party approaching it with unclean hands. This also
brings to mind the oft-quoted legal maxim–he who seeks
equity must do equity.”
Similarly, in a recent case i.e. Auroville Foundation v. Natasha
Storey, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 556, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
emphasized adherence to the doctrine of “clean hands” in following
terms :-
“9.It is no more res integra that the Doctrine of “Clean
hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable
with full force to every proceedings before any judicial
forum. The party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and
material facts in his Writ Petition. If it is brought to the
notice of the Court that the petition has been guilty of
suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come
with clean hands,such conduct must be seriously viewed by
the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition
must bed is missed on that ground alone without entering in
to the merits of the matter.”
12.Considering the facts of the present case, it is clear that the
concealment on the part of the petitioners is apparent on the face of the
record and is writ large. The petitioners have not disclosed the factum of
reminder notices being issued by the respondent -Gram Panchayat and
also the fact regarding challenge given to the eviction notices given by
the petitioners by way of civil suit. The petitioners have also not
mentioned the fact regarding rejection of the application filed under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. as well as dismissal of the appeal
filed against said order.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (11 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]
Apart from the said concealment, the petitioners have patently
made false statement that under the assurance of the respondent – Gram
Panchayat, they have vacated the shops in question and while
considering the same as a voluntary and bonafide vacation of shops by
the petitioners, this Court has granted interim relief in favour of the
petitioners. However, the record reveals that the possession of the shops
in question was to be taken with the help of police authorities.
Apart from the said concealment, it is also borne out from the
record of the case that the petitioners played clear mischief by
participating in the earlier auction proceedings and not submitting the
bid amount in spite of being declared as highest bidders, just with a view
to frustrate the first auction proceedings. Said fact shave not been
voluntarily disclosed by the petitioners. Subsequent bid proceedings are
challenged by the petitioners, which have been stayed by this Court while
relying upon the false averments made in the writ petition. The
cancellation of earlier bid proceedings where the petitioners themselves
have submitted respective bid of rent to the tune of Rs. 21,900/- (for Shop
No.A-4) and Rs.20,600/- (for Shop No. A-2), has caused financial losses
to the respondent – Gram Panchayat. This Court strongly deprecates and
condemns such dubious and unscrupulous practices adopted by the
petitioners. By engaging in conduct that amounts to a clear abuse of the
process of law, the petitioners have not only caused financial loss to the
Gram Panchayat but have also sought to misuse the judicial machinery
for ulterior purposes. In view of their conduct, this Court finds it
appropriate to saddle the petitioners with costs, so as to deter them and
others from indulging in similar misuse of legal proceedings in the future.
12.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaranand Anr.
Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. reported in(2012) 12 SCC 133,
while dealing with similar circumstanced action has held as under :-
“44. The appellants have not approached the court with
clean hands, and are therefore, not entitled for any relief.
Whenever a person approaches a court of equity, in the
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, it is expected that
he will approach the said court not only with clean hands
but also with a clean mind, a clean heart and clean
objectives. Thus, he who seeks equity must do equity. The
legal maxim jure naturae aequumest neminem cum alterius
detrimento et injuria fierilocupletiorem, means that it is a
law of nature that oneshould not be enriched by causing
loss or injury to another. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union
of India [MANU/SC/0117/1993 : 1992:INSC:308 : 1993
Supp(2) SCC 20 : AIR 1993 SC 852], Noorduddin v.
K.L.Anand [MANU/SC/0533/1995 : 1994:INSC:452 :
(1995) 1 SCC 242] and Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State
ofMaharashtra [MANU/SC/0279/1997 : 1996: INSC:1337:
(1997) 1 SCC 134 : AIR 1997 SC 1236].)
45. The judicial process cannot become an instrument of
oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the court
to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its
jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. The interests of
justice and public interest coalesce, and therefore, they are
very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit
containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement,
only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of
process of the Court.”
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (12 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]
13.In view of the discussion made above, looking to the conduct of the
petitioners in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the
present writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be
deposited by each of the petitioners with the Rajasthan State Legal
Services Authority, Jaipur, within 15 days from the date of this order. The
receipt of such deposit be submitted with the Registry, to be tagged with
the File.
It is clear that once the execution proceedings themselves
stood stayed, the consequential acts in furtherance of such
proceedings, including deposit of the balance sale consideration,
could not have been insisted upon. The statutory timeline under
Order XXI Rule 85 CPC cannot be applied in a vacuum, ignoring
the effect of judicial orders staying the proceedings. The learned
Executing Court has, therefore, rightly treated the period during
which the proceedings remained stayed as incapable of being
reckoned for the purposes of computing the limitation under Rule
85.
After dismissal of the appeal by this Court on 21.01.2026,
the execution proceedings were restored and the learned
Executing Court, by order dated 02.02.2026 and subsequent order
dated 10.02.2026, granted time to the auction purchaser to
deposit the balance sale consideration. The record reflects that the
auction purchaser prepared the demand draft on 17.02.2026 and
tendered the same before the Court, and the amount was
deposited on the next working day i.e. 18.02.2026. The
explanation furnished regarding closure of banking hours has been
accepted by the learned Executing Court. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, such acceptance cannot be said to be
arbitrary, perverse or beyond jurisdiction.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (13 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]
The contention of the petitioner while relying upon the
judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Manilal (supra) & Gas Point (supra) that the provisions of
Order XXI Rule 85 CPC are mandatory in nature is not in dispute.
However, the applicability of such provision must be tested in the
factual context of each case. In the present case, the delay in
deposit cannot be viewed distinct from the fact that the execution
proceedings themselves remained stayed on account of the stand
taken by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take
advantage of a situation which she herself contributed to.
It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner did not raise
any effective objection at the stage when the auction purchaser
moved applications seeking permission to deposit the balance
amount and chose to agitate the issue only after dismissal of her
appeal against the arbitral award. The plea raised in the present
writ petition, therefore, appears to be an afterthought of the
petitioner.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is supervisory
and is not meant to re-appreciate facts or to interfere with
discretionary orders unless the same are shown to be perverse or
without jurisdiction. In the present case, no such ground is made
out.
In the present case, the learned Executing Court has taken
into consideration all relevant aspects, including the effect of the
stay of execution proceedings, the conduct of the parties, and the
subsequent compliance by the auction purchaser. The view taken
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16858] (14 of 14) [CW-6723/2026]
by the learned Executing Court is a plausible view based on the
material available on record and does not suffer from any illegality
or perversity warranting interference by this Court.
In view of the above, the writ petition being devoid of merit
is dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
67-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:35:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)