Report No. 139
3.6. Is the object of amendment of Article 127 in fact served? No. The object of amendment of Article 127 was to remedy the mischief arising on account of the fact that Banks usually took more than 30 days to sanction loans and experience showed1 that judgment-debtors usually failed to arrange for the requisite loans to enable them to make the deposit in court within 30 days time and it resulted in hardship to the concerned judgment-debtors. The Law Commission of India in its 54th Report presented more than 18 years back had also made observations to this effect.2
It was in this backdrop that the hardship was sought to be overcome by enlarging the period from 30 days to 60 days so that the judgment-debtors could secure the necessary loans. The hardship was caused because Banks needed more than 30 days to sanction loans. This mischief could not be remedied except by granting to the judgment-debtor or the person interested in the property concerned enough time to obtain the funds. Thus the object of amendment is in point of fact defeated.
More than 30 days' time was not needed for making an application to set aside the sale. Once the deposit is made, the application would be made along with it or immediately, for it is not the drafting of the application which takes any time, it was needed to enable the judgment-debtor to obtain the loans from the Bank. Presumably as this dimension of the matter was not brought into focus, the Court has made the remark to the effect that the object of amendment was achieved. Be that as it may, with immense respect and due deference to the Supreme Court, the fact remains that the object of amendment is, as a matter of fact, frustrated rather than achieved.
1. Clause 102 of Notes on Clauses, Bill No. 27 of 1974, the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1974, published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), dated April 8, 1974 in Part II, section 2.
2. See para. 21.40 of the 54th Report presented on February 6, 1973.