Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXI Rule 85 (as applicable to State of Andhra Pradesh) — Deposit of purchase money and non-judicial stamp papers in court auction sale — Whether non-deposit of non-judicial stamps within prescribed time is fatal — Held, No — Trivial and bona fide lapse cannot invalidate sale when full sale consideration deposited. (Paras 6, 13–15) Order XXI Rule 92(2) CPC — Power of Court to extend time in case of shortfall due to clerical or arithmetic error — Scope — Even bona fide mistake, though not strictly clerical or arithmetic, can be condoned in appropriate circumstances. (Para 15) Court auction in partition suit — Highest bidder depositing entire bid amount (Rs.50,95,000/-) and excess poundage amount retained in Court custody — Sale set aside solely for delay in depositing stamp papers — Unsustainable. (Paras 4–7, 13)

advocatemmmohan

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXI Rule 85 (as applicable to State of Andhra Pradesh) — Deposit of purchase money and non-judicial stamp papers in court auction sale — Whether non-deposit of non-judicial stamps within prescribed time is fatal — Held, No — Trivial and bona fide lapse cannot invalidate sale when full sale consideration deposited. (Paras 6, 13–15)

Order XXI Rule 92(2) CPC — Power of Court to extend time in case of shortfall due to clerical or arithmetic error — Scope — Even bona fide mistake, though not strictly clerical or arithmetic, can be condoned in appropriate circumstances. (Para 15)

Court auction in partition suit — Highest bidder depositing entire bid amount (Rs.50,95,000/-) and excess poundage amount retained in Court custody — Sale set aside solely for delay in depositing stamp papers — Unsustainable. (Paras 4–7, 13)

Principle — De minimis non curat lex — Law does not concern itself with trifles — Minor procedural infraction should not defeat substantive rights — Applied. (Para 14)

Precedent referred — Musammat Rukmini Kuer v. Balmik Prasad — Followed in principle. (Para 14)

---

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition was directed against the order dated 16.07.2021 passed in I.A.No.588 of 2014 in O.S.No.252 of 1986 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby the Court auction sale was set aside on the ground of non-deposit of non-judicial stamp papers within the time prescribed under Order XXI Rule 85 CPC. (Paras 1, 6)

The suit was one for partition. Item No.1 of the schedule property being indivisible, was brought to auction on 18.02.2020. The petitioner emerged as highest bidder for Rs.50,95,000/- and deposited 1/4th amount and poundage on 19.02.2020, and the balance 3/4th amount on 25.02.2020. An excess amount of Rs.1,52,895/- was also paid under bona fide mistake, which remained in Court custody. (Paras 3–5)

The trial Court set aside the sale on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit non-judicial stamp papers within the prescribed time. The review application was also dismissed. (Paras 6–8)

It was contended that the delay occurred as no formal confirmation order was passed and that sufficient funds towards stamp value were already available with the Court. The contesting respondent had no objection for extension of time. (Paras 11, 12)

The High Court held that when the entire sale consideration had been deposited and even excess amount was lying with the Court, cancellation of sale for non-deposit of stamp papers amounted to taking a hyper-technical view. Non-deposit of non-judicial stamp papers in the facts of the case was a trivial and bona fide error. (Para 13)

Invoking the maxim “de minimis non curat lex”, it was observed that the law does not concern itself with trifles and minor infractions ought not to defeat substantive rights. Reliance was placed on Musammat Rukmini Kuer v. Balmik Prasad. (Para 14)

Further, though Order XXI Rule 92(2) CPC specifically refers to clerical or arithmetic errors, the Court held that even a bona fide error of the present nature could be condoned and time extended. (Para 15)

Accordingly, the order dated 16.07.2021 was set aside. The trial Court was directed to receive the stamp papers and issue the sale certificate after due compliance. The Civil Revision Petition was allowed. No order as to costs. Pending applications stood closed. (Paras 16, 17)