1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The appellant, who is the co-owner of the suit property, applied under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, for setting aside the sale on the ground that the auction-purchaser had not paid the purchase money within 15 days as required by Order 21 Rule 85. The executing court upheld the contention and set aside the sale.
5. Aggrieved by that order, Respondent 1 filed an appeal but it was dismissed. He, therefore, filed a revision petition to the High Court. The High Court while dismissing the revision petition directed the appellant to pay the loss suffered by the auction-purchaser as at his instance the sale was being set aside after 15 years and the auction-purchaser has suffered a loss because of the delay. The High Court also directed an enquiry to be held in that behalf.
6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order directing the appellant to pay the loss suffered by the auction-purchaser is illegal as no such order could have been passed under Order 21 Rule 90 it is undisputed that the auction-purchaser had not paid the purchase money within 15 days and therefore the sale was liable to be set aside. It is also not disputed that such an order could not have been passed by the High Court while dismissing the revision petition of the auction-purchaser. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside that part of the order passed by the High Court whereby the appellant has been directed to pay the loss suffered by Respondent 1.
7. As the appeal was filed beyond time, we have condoned the delay on the condition that the appellant pays Rs. 5000 to Respondent 1 as cost within 8 weeks from today.