Horance Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal comes before us on account of a difference of opinion between Jackson and Thiruvenkatachariar, JJ., upon one point.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:The appellant bid at a Court sale, his bid was accepted, but he failed to pay the 25 per cent. deposit as is prescribed by Order 21, Rule 84, Civil Procedure Code. Having defaulted in the payment of the deposit, a fresh proclamation was issued and a re-sale of the property held. This sale resulted in a deficiency of Rs. 630 and the appellant was ordered under Order 21, Rule 71, Civil Procedure Code, to make good the deficiency. He objects to that order on the ground that the sale was not held 'forthwith' to use the word which appears in Order 21, Rule 84, Civil Procedure Code, which provides that upon failure of a bidder to pay the 25 per cent. deposit the property shall 'forthwith' be resold. The sale at which the appellant defaulted was held on the 1st September, 1923, and closed at 5 p.m. that day. The appellant, as before stated, failed to pay the 25 per cent. deposit; the next day and the day after that were holidays and on the 4th September a fresh proclamation was directed to be issued proclaiming the property for sale and the sale was held on the 5th November, 1923, and resulted, as before stated, in a deficiency.
3. The District Munsif, before whom the matter came, after going in detail Unto the facts and into the law, seems to us, to have come to the conclusion that although a fresh proclamation was not obligatory, it was necessary in the interests, of the defaulting bidder to proclaim the property again for sale. We may say at once that we think that in the interests of the defaulting bidder it was necessary for the property to be again pro claimed for sale. Had the property been put for sale on the 4th September, clearly there would have been no notice to prospective bidders and very likely no bidder would have attended the sale at all. In the Lower Appellate Court, however, the District Judge took the view that, where a bidder defaults in payment of the deposit, the property cannot be re-sold unless there has been a fresh proclamation of sale; and he held upon that basis that, as the sale of the property had to be freshly proclaimed, the sale had been held 'forthwith.'
4. When the matter came before Jackson and Thiruvenkatachariar, JJ., they agreed that a fresh proclamation is not necessary under such circumstances but disagreed on the question as to whether the property had been sold 'forthwith.' Jackson, J., took the view that although it was not obligatory to freshly proclaim the sale, nevertheless in the interests of the defaulting auction-bidder, it should be freshly proclaimed, that there had been no unnecessary delay and that the sale should be Said to have been held 'forthwith'. He gave his understanding of the word 'forthwith' and rendered it as follows : 'as expeditiously as circumstances permit'; and that in our view would be a good rendering of the word. It is very difficult to say how the word 'forthwith' should be defined; but we think that the rendering of it by Jackson, J., is probably as good a one as these can be and that 'as expeditiously as circumstances permit' is probably the correct definition of that word. Another rendering might be 'such time as appears to be reasonably early having regard to all the circumstances. Obviously ill some cases it might reasonably be held that the re-sale should take place immediately following on the abortive sale. For instance, take the case of a sale of ten lots of property where the first lot is put up for auction, the bid of a bidder is accepted but he then and there defaults in payment of the deposit. Under those circumstances probably it could quite reasonably be held that the property should be sold 'forthwith' meaning that it should be sold then and there before the sale of other nine lots is proceeded with; but it must depend entirely upon the circumstances of each case.
5. In this case we think that although it was not obligatory for a fresh proclamation of sale to be issued, yet it was in the interests, of the auction-bidder that there should be a fresh proclamation for sale; that being so, there was no unnecessary delay, and in these circumstances the sale can be said to have been held 'forthwith'. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed. No costs, as the respondent is unrepresented before us.