JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.
1. The appeal is against the order passed on 29.9.2000 by which learned Single Judge directed the interest accrued on the amount deposited by the auction purchaser to be paid the decree holder and judgment debtor. The auction purchaser in this appeal has questioned the legality and validity of the exercise of discretion by learned Single Judge contending that since decree holder and judgment debtor continued to remain in occupation of the property and thereby enjoyed the benefit of the property, which had been auctioned, in equity interest ought to have been directed to be paid to the auction purchaser, who was deprived of the possession of the property.
2. Facts relevant for decision of the present appeal are that in a suit for partition where property could not be partitioned equally by meters and bounds, same was ordered to be sold and the sale proceeds distributed amongst the decree holder and the Judgment Debtor (the respondents in this appeal). Order for sale by inviting bids was made by the Court on 14.7.1999. This order was challenged by the judgment debtor, by filing as appeal. An interim order was passed on 18.8.1999 that in the meanwhile, it is directed that pursuant to the impugned order proceedings may continue, but final order accepting bid will not be passed.
3. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the public notice (Annexure-P. IV) bids were offered. Auction Purchaser also offered the bid. The Auction Purchaser also deposited a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, which was a condition precedent for offering the bid. The public notice had notified reserve price of the property to be at Rs. 20 Crores stating that offers for more than Rs. 20 Crores be sent in a sealed cover along with bank draft of Rs. 50 lakhs in the name of the Registrar, Delhi High Court. The said deposit was made by the Auction Purchaser on 30.10.1999 in order that the bid offered by him be considered. On 2.12.1999 an order was made by the appeal Court modifying the earlier order dated 18.8.1999 that bids if accepted by learned Single Judge will be subject to the final outcome of the appeal and the mere fact that bid has been accepted and any amount has been deposited by the highest bidder, will not confer any right on the successful bidder to claim equity in his favour.
4. In view of the order passed on 2.12.1999 by appeal Court, learned Single Judge on 3.12.1999 accepted the highest bid of the appellant/Auction Purchaser. Consequently, the Auction Purchaser on 8.12.1999 deposited a sum of Rs. 6,60,50,000/-. The appeal court on 21.7.2000 dismissed the appeal of the Judgment Debtor thereby upholding the order of sale of the property. In furtherance of the said order and in obedience of the order of learned Single Judge dated 18.8.2000 the appellant/Auction Purchaser on 28.8.2000 deposited that balance amount of Rs. 19,69,50,000/-. Sale certificate has not yet been issued in favour of Auction Purchaser but in the meantime, the Auction Purchaser of his own made an effort to obtain possession of the property from the decree holder and the judgment debtor. The admitted position is that on 28.9.2000 the Auction Purchaser got peaceful possession of the property.
5. The claim of the appellant is that from 8.12.1999 to 28.9.2000 the 25% of the bid amount of Rs. 6,60,50,000/- was lying deposited with the Registrar. The appellant was denied the usage of the property. Decree holder and judgment debtor enjoyed the possession and usages of the property, therefore, interest accrued on this amount ought to have been ordered to be paid to him instead of to the decree holder and the judgment debtor. The appellant unilaterally offered temporary accommodation to the judgment debtors so that they could vacate the property immediately. In this back ground the appellant/Auction Purchaser moved EA. 387/2000 before learned Single Judge seeking direction for the interest on the money deposited by him till the date on which the Auction Purchaser was actually handed over the vacant possession.
6. We have heard the respective submissions made at the bar. There is neither any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the C.P.C.") nor has been brought to our notice under which interest would become payable to the Auction Purchaser on a deposit of 25% in the event of confirmation of the sale in favour of the Auction Purchaser. The only provision in the C.P.C. about payment of interest to the Auction Purchasers is in the eventuality where the purchase money is ordered to be returned to the Auction Purchaser. Rule 93 of Order 21 C.P.C. says that 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. In this case admittedly the amount deposited by the Auction Purchaser had not been paid either to the judgment debtor or to the decree holder. It remained laying deposited in Court. In the instant case even the sale of the immovable property was not set aside, rather it was affirmed in favour of the Auction Purchaser. The conditions incorporated in the public notice pursuant to which the Auction Purchaser offered his bid being:-
i) Highest bid shall be accepted only after approved by the High Court;
ii) Highest offer/purchaser whose bid is accepted by the High Court shall immediately deposit 20% of the bid amount with the Registrar, Delhi High Court, the balance sale price shall be paid by Bank Pay Order in the name of Registrar, Delhi High Court within the time fixed by High Court. In case of default, the purchaser shall be laid to pay cost as may be assessed by the High Court, the property then shall be resold after issue of fresh notice;
iii) On deposit of full sale price, vacant possession of the whole property shall be delivered by Court to the purchaser;
iv) No unearned increase on sale is payable to L&DO as per terms, of perpetual lease, however, if any charges are to be paid to the L&DO, the same shall be borne by the purchaser."
7. The aforementioned conditions made aware the Auction Purchaser of the fact that the highest bid shall be accepted only after the same is approved by the High Court. The highest bidder was required to deposit 25% of the sale price on acceptance of the bid and the balance sale price was to be deposited within the time to be fixed by the Court. The Auction Purchaser was further made aware that he would become entitled to get vacant possession of the property only on deposit of the full sale price.
8. Though 25% of the amount was deposited by the auction purchaser on 8.12.1999, the full sale price was deposited only on 28.8.2000. The auction purchaser was aware of the fact that it was a sale in court proceedings and was also aware of the order passed by the Court on 2.12.1999 that the bid, if accepted, shall be subject to the final out come of the appeal and that the mere fact that bid has been accepted and any amount has been deposited by the highest bidder will not confer any right on the successful bidder to claim equity in his favour. On deposit of the highest bid alone the Auction Purchaser would be entitled to a sale certificate in consonance with the provisions of Rule 94 of Order 21 C.P.C. whereafter alone the Auction Purchaser would have become entitled to possession of the property in accordance with Rule 95 of Order 21 C.P.C. Such certificate admittedly has not yet been issued. Therefore, the Auction Purchaser could not claim vacant possession of the property on the date when the application was moved by him for orders for payment of interest. Thus even on bare reading of the conditions of auction, the claim of the Auction Purchaser for interest on the amount of Rs. 6,60,50,000/- is not at all tenable either in law or in equity. Therefore, it cannot be said that learned Single Judge did not exercise discretion properly. The exercise of discretion by learned Single Judge as regards disbursement of the amount of interest accrued on the deposit is lawful. There is yet another ground on which the appellant would have no claim for interest is that had the amount been deposited by the Auction Purchaser in civil court's deposit, there would have accrued no interest on such deposit, as per the rules governing civil court deposits. Since it was under the specific directions of the Court that the amount was kept in a fixed deposit that the said amount has earned interest. With the exercise of discretion by learned Single Judge, which is in consonance with the law, no interference is called for in the appeal.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs, Interim order vacated.