Article 136 restraint limits interference with discretionary execution orders allowing time for statutory deposit to set aside auction sale.

A discretionary order in execution proceedings granting judgment debtors further time to make the statutory deposit under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC for setting aside an auction sale will ordinarily not be disturbed under Article 136. Where the recalculated amount is found correct and the relief is exercised to prevent loss of property in long-pending execution proceedings, appellate interference is unwarranted unless illegality, perversity, or a clear error of law or jurisdiction is shown. In the absence of any substantial question justifying interference, the order remains undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was warranted against the High Court's exercise of discretion granting the judgment debtors one further opportunity to deposit the amount required under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and thereby set aside the auction sale.

Analysis: The amount payable under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had been recalculated and found correct, but the High Court nevertheless granted time to the judgment debtors to deposit the sum. The relief was discretionary in nature and was intended to prevent loss of the property in the circumstances of the long-pending execution proceedings. No substantial question of law or jurisdictional error was shown that would justify appellate interference.

Conclusion: Interference was not warranted and the discretionary order of the High Court was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A discretionary order in execution proceedings allowing a judgment debtor time to make the statutory deposit for setting aside an auction sale will not ordinarily be interfered with under Article 136 unless it is shown to be illegal, perverse, or contrary to law.

---