1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order marked as Ext.P11 in all these writ petitions rejecting applications filed by the petitioner Bank for confirmation of sale on the ground that the sale was held on a date beyond the period of seven days prescribed by Rule 81(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1969 Rules’).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in all these cases, if the intervening holidays on account of Onam (4 days) are excluded, there is no illegality in the sale. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter had not been considered by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Vaikom while passing the impugned orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 9 of the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Interpretation and General Clauses Act’) and submits that if the intervening holidays are excluded, the sale cannot be held to be beyond the time specified in the 2nd proviso to Rule 81(f) of the 1969 Rules.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the 2nd proviso to Rule 76(x), which applies to the sale of movable property as also Rule 81(f) of the 1969 Rules, which applies to the sale of immovable property, mandates that where the Sale Officer adjourns sale for a period of more than seven days, a fresh sale can be held only after a fresh proclamation. It is submitted that the Assistant Registrar rejected the applications filed for confirmation of sale only because the sale sought to be confirmed was held beyond the period of seven days from the date of adjournment, without a fresh proclamation.

4. Notice issued to the party respondents has been served in all the above writ petitions except in W.P(C)No.18905 of 2026. However, the fact that the party respondent in W.P(C)No.18905 of 2026 has not been served need not detain this Court from considering the above writ petitions as I am inclined to remit the matter for fresh consideration of the Assistant Registrar with a direction to take into consideration the provisions of Section 9 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, referred to above, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to all affected parties. Though the party respondents have been served in all writ petitions, except in W.P(C)No.18905 of 2026, there is no appearance for them.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, I am of the view that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 9 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act reads thus:-

                  “9. Computation of time.- Where, by any Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open: Provided that nothing in the Section shall apply to any act or proceeding to which the Limitation Act for the time being in force applies.”

                  It is clear from a reading of Section 9 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act referred to above that where any Act or proceeding is required to be done within a prescribed period, the days on which any Court or office is closed for any reason shall be excluded. Section 9 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act is pari materia with Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as the General Clauses Act). The Supreme Court in Mohd. Ayub v. State of U.P., (2009) 17 SCC 70 held as follows:

                  “8. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act has come up for consideration in various cases before this Court and also different High Courts. In Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh a four-Judge Bench of this Court explained the object of Section 10 very lucidly. The learned Judges have held as under: (AIR p. 273, para 5)

                  “5. … Where, therefore, a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a court or office, and that period expires on a holiday, then according to the section the act should be considered to have been done within that period, if it is done on the next day on which the court or office is open. For that section to apply, therefore, all that is requisite is that there should be a period prescribed, and that period should expire on a holiday.”

                  The decision in Harinder Singh was rendered in the context of an election dispute but the general principles explained therein apply to all cases.

                  9…………….

                  10. The learned Judges in Chaganti accepted the interpretation of Section 10 in N. Sureya Reddy v. State of Orissa and held that the principle enunciated in Section 10 of the General Clauses Act should be invoked on consideration of justice and expediency. Rather recently in HUDA v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar this Court held that there is a general principle that a party, prevented from doing an act for some reasons beyond his control, can do so at the first subsequent opportunity. The learned Judges further elaborated by saying that the underlying object of Section 10 is to enable a person to do what he should have done in a holiday, on the next working day. The learned Judges held that the said principle is based on the doctrine that law does not compel the performance of an impossibility. In saying so, the learned Judges relied on an old decision of the Calcutta High Court in Hossein Ally v. Donzelle. This Court is in respectful agreement with the aforesaid principles.”

                  Here in the facts of these cases, it is the specific case of the petitioner that in all these cases between the date on which the sale was adjourned and the next date on which the sale was held, 4 days were holidays on account of Onam and if this period is excluded, the sale is within the time specified by the 2nd proviso to Rule 76(x)/ Rule 81(f) of the 1969 Rules. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Assistant Registrar while passing the impugned orders.

                  Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The orders produced as Ext.P11 in all these cases will stand quashed and the applications filed by the petitioner for confirmation of sale shall be reconsidered by the Assistant Registrar keeping in mind the provisions of Section 9 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act and the observations in this judgment. While passing fresh orders, the Assistant Registrar shall hear the petitioner and all affected parties. Fresh orders shall be passed by the Assistant Registrar, as directed above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.