Contextual reading of auction-sale rules: next-day deposit and early confirmation did not, by themselves, void the sale.

The term "immediately" in Order XXI Rule 84 was construed contextually and purposively, not as an inflexible requirement of same-moment payment. Where the bid was accepted after court hours and the bank was closed, deposit of 25% on the next day, in compliance with the court's direction, satisfied the rule and did not void the auction sale. Confirmation of the sale before expiry of 30 days was also held insufficient by itself to invalidate the sale, particularly when the purchase money was deposited within the time contemplated by Order XXI Rule 85. The impugned orders were set aside, with other contentions left open before the Executing Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the term "immediately" in Order XXI Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 required literal same-moment deposit of 25% of the bid amount on the facts of the case. (ii) Whether the auction sale was void merely because it was confirmed before expiry of 30 days from acceptance of the bid.

Issue (i): Whether the term "immediately" in Order XXI Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 required literal same-moment deposit of 25% of the bid amount on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The expression "immediately" was construed in its contextual and purposive sense, not as an inflexible command of instantaneous payment irrespective of practical difficulty. The Court held that where the bid was accepted after court hours and the bank was closed, compliance on the next day pursuant to the court's own direction satisfied the statutory requirement. The interpretation adopted avoided absurdity and gave effect to settled principles that the law does not require the impossible and that an act of court should not prejudice a party.

Conclusion: The deposit made on the next day did not amount to non-compliance with Order XXI Rule 84, and the auction sale was not void on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the auction sale was void merely because it was confirmed before expiry of 30 days from acceptance of the bid.

Analysis: The Court held that confirmation of the sale before 30 days, by itself, did not furnish a decisive ground to invalidate the sale, particularly when the full purchase money had been deposited within the time contemplated by Order XXI Rule 85. The subsequent attempt to set aside the sale after several years was not supported by the ground relied upon by the High Court.

Conclusion: The sale was not void merely because it was confirmed before the expiry of 30 days.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable and were set aside, leaving other contentions open for consideration by the Executing Court in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement in a sale rule must be construed reasonably in context, and compliance is not defeated where literal performance is rendered impossible by the circumstances and the court's own direction.

---