Or.21, Rule 64,66 and Or.21, rule 90 of C.P.C -Even though a portion of the property is enough to satisfy the decree claim, No sale should be set aside due to dereliction, negligence & carelessness of Jdr, not only in contesting the case but also in complaining the orders of the Court - Exparte Decree - E.P.Claim Rs.3,55,732/- -Sale of agricultural land of Jdr -Sale Held- Auction purchaser paid sale price of Rs.13 lakhs and odd - Sale set aside by High court - Apex court granted time to pay auction purchaser a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and odd including compensation- Jdr failed to pay the same - Jdr failed to pay the E.P. claim also to the Dhr-2015 S.C.(2014) MSK Law Reports 1


The High Court  by  the  impugned
judgment dated 13th December, 2013, allowed the petition and set  aside  the
sale and directed the Executing Court to take appropriate  action  for  sale
of the property in question in accordance with the provisions  of  Rules  64
and 66 of Order XXI of the CPC.   It was also directed that respondent  no.1
i.e. the petitioner before the High Court should deposit  the  amount  which
had been paid to the decree holder i.e. the present  respondent  no.2.   The
amount deposited by the auction purchaser was directed  to  be  refunded  to
him by the executing Court and it was also directed that respondent  no.1  –
the judgment debtor should  be  put  into  possession  of  the  property  in
question.

 Apex court held that  
we are of  the  view
that the judgment delivered by the High Court is not  just  and  proper  for
the reason that respondent no.1- debtor had never shown his fairness in  the
entire proceedings.  Though an ex-parte decree was passed  against  him,  he
never made sincere efforts to get the decree set aside.  Even  at  the  time
when the sale proclamation had been issued, he did not raise  any  objection
to the effect that even by sale of lesser area  of  his  land,  the  decree-
holder would get his dues.  Only after the auction sale had been  concluded,
he had initiated different  proceedings  before  different  Courts,  perhaps
only with an  intention  to  see  that  the  property  in  question  is  not
transferred to the auction purchaser.

In our opinion, respondent no.1 ought to have raised his objection  at
the stage when the property in question was to be sold by  an  auction.   He
did not do so.  Subsequently, after the property was sold  at  the  auction,
he approached the High Court, though a proper remedy for him was to file  an
application under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the CPC.    When  the  High  Court
had directed him to  file  appropriate  proceedings  before  an  appropriate
forum, he did so, but there also he was so  careless  that  the  proceedings
had been concluded against him on account of defaults committed by him.

The aforestated circumstances very well show  that  the  intention  of
the principal debtor is to avoid making payment to the  decree  holder.   If
the judgment delivered by the High Court is upheld, the  entire  proceedings
with regard to execution will commence de novo and one does not know  as  to
when the proceedings would be concluded and the decree holder would get  the
decretal amount.  By this time, the decretal amount, which was Rs.3,55,732/-
 somewhere in 2006, must have increased substantially and it  would  not  be
just and proper to keep the decree holder waiting still more.

 For the aforestated reasons, in the interest of justice, we feel  that
the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court  deserves  to  be  quashed
and set aside.  If the  auction  purchaser  is  not  in  possession  of  the
property in question or if there is obstruction  by  respondent  no.1,  such
obstruction shall be removed and the appellant shall be  put  in  possession
of the property in question.

 For the aforestated reasons, the appeal  is  allowed.  - 2015 S.C.(2014) MSK Law Reports 1

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more