Aggrieved by the order dated 5.4.2013 in E.A.625 of 2013 in E.P. 154 of 2007, the petitioner before the court below has come up in revision.
2. The petitioner had filed an application for refund of the value of the stamp paper of Rs.60,000/- after deducting 6% therefrom. The petitioner was the decree holder in the suit. The property was put to sale and the decree holder purchased the same in auction sale on 31.5.2010. Rs.60,000/- was deposited on 11.6.2010 and the sale was confirmed on 29.1.2011.
3. While things stood so, the judgment debtors filed Ex.F.A. 36 of 2012 before this Court. This Court was gracious enough to provide them an opportunity to pay the decree debt in instalments. They had to wipe off the decree debt in seven instalments and the condition was that if they default any one of the instalments, the sale would stand and the amounts paid under the instalment facility need not be repaid by the decree holder to the judgment debtors. The judgment debtors did comply with the order of this Court. The result was that the sale stood set aside. It was under those circumstances the petitioner was compelled to move the court with the above petition.
4. The court below relying on the decision reported in Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala (2009(3) K.L.T. 72) rejected the petition on the ground that the period of six months from the date of purchase, the time limit prescribed for refund, has already expired and therefore it cannot be entertained.
5. Apart from the fact that the provision quoted is wrong, the decision referred to by the court below has no application to the facts of this case. No person shall be prejudiced by the act of court. In this case, it was the instalment facility afforded by this Court which postponed the surrender of the sale certificate by the decree holder since as per the order of this Court if the judgment debtor defaulted one instalment, the sale would stand. On the other hand, if the judgment debtor honoured the order of this Court, the result was automatic setting aside of the sale. Therefore, the decree holder was obliged to wait till the time granted by this Court had expired. Final instalment due as per order of this court was in January, 2013 and that was paid. The application for refund was made in March, 2013.
6. There was no default on the part of the petitioner in not making the application within the stipulated time and he was prevented by the orders of this Court from doing so. Fortunately for this court, the issue is covered by the decision reported in Wilson Chakkappan v. Tahsildar (2012 (4) K.L.T. SN 74) wherein a similar situation was considered and this Court held that in such circumstances, the application ought to have been accepted and proceedings for refund ought to have been taken. That was a case in which the application was made to the District Collector.
Following the principle laid down in the above decision, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the court below is directed to receive the certificate and take such steps as are necessary to have the refund of the amount made available to the petitioner.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.