Order 21 rule 84 and 85

stolenheart (Querist) 03 March 2022 This query is : Resolved
If a high court passes order for the auction of a decree property and gives a timeline of its own - that is not as per rule 85 and 86 of order 21 CPC, can this be challenged? In the present case, in place of time period of deposit of 25% immediate after auction and balance within 15 days, the court has published the time period to one month and three months respectively.

In place of approaching the court thru a writ petition, is there any mechanism whereby I can point out to the court its mistake directly?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

This discussion explores challenging a High Court order for property auction that deviates from Order 21, Rules 84 and 85 of the CPC regarding deposit timelines. The court set longer deposit periods than prescribed. While a writ petition is an option, the user seeks a direct method to inform the court of its error. Advice suggests applying to the executing court for timeline adherence issues, as per Rule 85, and considering a Writ of Certiorari under Article 227 for High Court intervention.

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 04 March 2022
@ Stolen Heart,
The subject property shall be auctioned and realisation has to be deposited within time frame, if time frame is not adhered, move an application before executing Court as the provision of Rule 85 of Order XXI CPC prescribes "The full amount of the 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."
Rule 86 of Order XXI CPC provides procedure in default of payment.

P. Venu (Expert) 04 March 2022
The High Court could be approached in a Writ of Certiorari under Article 227.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries