advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Or.21, Rule 89 CPC and Art.127 of Limitation Act - sale set aside petition by Jdr should be made with in 60 days and should have deposited the sale amount and poundage etc., - High court ignored the settled law and allow the writ - Apex court held that in view of the settled law on the issue as noted above, in this case it must be held that the High court committed grave error of law in not noticing the relevant provisions of CPC and the Limitation Act and in allowing the Writ Petition for re-consideration of the petition under Order XXI Rule 89, CPC. In absence of required deposit made by the judgment-debtor within the time mandated by law, such an exercise would be only an exercise in futility because the Executing Court does not have any option but to reject the petition. In such a situation, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the Appeal is allowed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) payable by Respondent no.1 to the Appellant.= Annapurna …..Appellant Versus Mallikarjun & Anr. …..Respondents= 2014 ( April. Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41409

Or.21, Rule 89 CPC and Art.127 of Limitation Act - sale set aside petition by Jdr should be made with in 60 days and should have deposited the sale amount and poundage etc., - High court ignored the settled law and allow the writ - Apex court held that in view of the settled law on the issue as noted above, in  this  case it     must be held that the High court committed grave error of law in  not noticing   the relevant provisions of CPC and  the  Limitation  Act  and  in
allowing the Writ Petition for re-consideration of the petition under  Order XXI Rule 89, CPC. In absence of required deposit made by  the  judgment-debtor  within  the  time mandated by law, such an exercise would be  only  an  exercise  in  futility because the Executing Court does not have  any  option  but  to  reject  the petition.  In such a situation, the judgment under appeal is set  aside  and the Appeal is allowed with a  cost  of  Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees  Ten  Thousand)
payable by Respondent no.1 to the Appellant.=

whether the High Court could have  ignored  the  settled
law that  under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963  an  application  to
set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 89, CPC has  to  be  filed  within  60
days from the date of sale and same is the period for  making  the  required
deposit.

A careful perusal of the provisions in Rules 89 and 92 of  Order  XXI,
 CPC and Article 127 of the Limitation Act leaves no manner  of  doubt  that
although Order XXI Rule 89, CPC does not prescribe  any  period  either  for
making  the  application  or  the  required  deposit,  Article  127  of  the
Limitation    Act now prescribes 60 days as the period within which such  an
application  should be made.  
In absence of any separate  period  prescribed
for making the deposit, as per judgment of the  Constitution  Bench  in  the
case of Jammlu Ramulu (supra) the time to make  the  deposit  and  that  for
making the   application would be the same.
8.    In the case of Ram Karan  Gupta  (supra),  it  has  been  held,  after
considering the Constitution Bench judgment and other  relevant  case  laws,
that deposit of the requisite amount in the court is a  condition  precedent
or a sine   qua non to application for setting aside the execution  of  sale
and such an    amount must be  deposited  within  the  prescribed  time  for
making the     application otherwise the application must be dismissed.
9.    In view of the settled law on the issue as noted above, in  this  case
it     must be held that the High court committed grave error of law in  not
noticing   the relevant provisions of CPC and  the  Limitation  Act  and  in
allowing the Writ Petition for re-consideration of the petition under  Order
XXI Rule 89, CPC. 
 In absence of required deposit made by  the  judgment-debtor  within  the  time
mandated by law, such an exercise would be  only  an  exercise  in  futility
because the Executing Court does not have  any  option  but  to  reject  the
petition.  In such a situation, the judgment under appeal is set  aside  and
the Appeal is allowed with a  cost  of  Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees  Ten  Thousand)
payable by Respondent no.1 to the Appellant.
   
 2014 ( April. Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41409
ANIL R. DAVE, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
                                                              REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4469 OF 2014
                 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.16312 of 2010]

Annapurna                                          …..Appellant

      Versus

Mallikarjun & Anr.                                 …..Respondents




                               J U D G M E N T



SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.


1.    Leave granted.
2.    The matter relates to an Execution Proceeding in which  the  Executing
Court put a house bearing CTS No.1610/B to auction and after  rejecting  the
objections raised by the judgment-debtor, Respondent no.1 herein,  confirmed
  the Court Sale by issuing Certificate of Sale in  favour  of  the  auction
purchaser, the Appellant.  Against the order dated 18.12.2004 passed by  the
Executing  Court dismissing his application under Order XXI Rule 89  of  the
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the judgment-debtor preferred an appeal  being
Miscellaneous Appeal No.1/2005 before  Civil  Judge  (Sr.  Division).   That
appeal was    dismissed on 26.7.2006 with a finding that the appeal was  not
maintainable.    The judgment-debtor then preferred Writ  Petition  No.10550
of 2006 before the
  C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.16312/10 …. (contd.)
High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga to  challenge  the  order
of   the Executing Court as well  as  of  the  Appellate  Court.   The  High
Court, by the order under appeal dated 18.2.2010, allowed the writ  petition
by quashing the impugned order of the  Executing  Court  and  remitting  the
matter back to the Executing Court for fresh disposal  of  judgment-debtor’s
application under    Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC.
3.    The moot question of law raised in this appeal does not  require  this
  Court to go into facts in any detail.  The issue of law raised  on  behalf
of the Appellant is whether the High Court could have  ignored  the  settled
law that  under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963  an  application  to
set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 89, CPC has  to  be  filed  within  60
days from the date of sale and same is the period for  making  the  required
deposit.
4.     On  facts,  it  is  sufficient  to  notice  that  after  success   in
O.S.No.26/1969,   the  decree-holder  instituted  execution  proceedings  in
E.P.No.17/1993.  The property in question was sold  through  Court  Sale  on
7.8.2004.  The judgment-debtor filed an application  under  Order  XXI  Rule
89, CPC on 3.9.2004 to set aside the Court Sale along  with  an  application
to appoint a Court     Commissioner to find out  the  market  value  of  the
sold property.  Decree-holder filed objections and thereafter  by  different
orders passed on 18.12.2004 the Executing Court  rejected  the  applications
of the judgment-debtor and issued Certificate  of  Sale  in  favour  of  the
auction purchaser.  On 15.1.2005, the Executing Court closed  the  Execution
Petition  as  fully  satisfied.   Admittedly,  at  no  point  of  time,  the
judgment-debtor  made  any  deposit as required by Order
 C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.16312/10 …. (contd.)
XXI Rule 89, CPC before the Executing Court.  As noticed earlier,  judgment-
debtor’s Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed as  not  maintainable.   In  the
Writ Petition preferred by him, the High  Court  agreed  that  Miscellaneous
Appeal    was not maintainable but primarily  because  the  judgment-debtor,
on an opportunity given by the Writ Court, had  deposited  Rs.25,000/-  over
and above the amount for which the property was  sold,  impugned  order  was
passed to   remit the matter back to the Executing Court for fresh  disposal
of the    application under Order XXI Rule 89 of the  CPC  with  liberty  to
the writ petitioner to place available materials before the Executing  Court
to show that  the value of the property is more than the price  obtained  in
the Court auction.
6.    According to learned counsel for the Appellant, the High  Court  erred
in ignoring the relevant provisions such as Rules 89 and 92 of Order XXI  of
the CPC and Article 127 of the Limitation Act otherwise it would  have  come
to the only possible conclusion that in absence of  required  deposit  being
made within  60 days, the Executing Court had no option but  to  reject  the
petition under     Order  XXI  Rule  89  of  the  CPC.  In  support  of  his
submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon a recent judgment  of  this
Court in the case of Ram Karan Gupta v. J.S. Exim Ltd. & Ors. (2012) 13  SCC
568 and a Constitution Bench judgment in the case  of  Dadi  Jagannadham  v.
Jammlu Ramulu & Ors.   (2001) 7 SCC  71  which  has  been  referred  to  and
relied upon in the case of     Ram Karan Gupta (supra).
7.    On the other hand, learned  counsel  for  Respondent  no.1,  judgment-
debtor, submitted that  the High  Court  has   adopted  a  just  and  proper
course to
 C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.16312/10 …. (contd.)
give another chance to the judgment-debtor to prove his objection  that  the
property sold in the court auction was not valued  properly.   He  submitted
that such a course of  action  was  warranted  by  the  peculiar  facts  and
circumstances    of the case.
7.    A careful perusal of the provisions in Rules 89 and 92 of  Order  XXI,
 CPC and Article 127 of the Limitation Act leaves no manner  of  doubt  that
although Order XXI Rule 89, CPC does not prescribe  any  period  either  for
making  the  application  or  the  required  deposit,  Article  127  of  the
Limitation    Act now prescribes 60 days as the period within which such  an
application  should be made.  In absence of any separate  period  prescribed
for making the deposit, as per judgment of the  Constitution  Bench  in  the
case of Jammlu Ramulu (supra) the time to make  the  deposit  and  that  for
making the   application would be the same.
8.    In the case of Ram Karan  Gupta  (supra),  it  has  been  held,  after
considering the Constitution Bench judgment and other  relevant  case  laws,
that deposit of the requisite amount in the court is a  condition  precedent
or a sine   qua non to application for setting aside the execution  of  sale
and such an    amount must be  deposited  within  the  prescribed  time  for
making the     application otherwise the application must be dismissed.
9.    In view of the settled law on the issue as noted above, in  this  case
it     must be held that the High court committed grave error of law in  not
noticing   the relevant provisions of CPC and  the  Limitation  Act  and  in
allowing the Writ Petition for re-consideration of the petition under  Order
XXI Rule 89, CPC.  In
   C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.16312/10 …. (contd.)
absence of required deposit made by  the  judgment-debtor  within  the  time
mandated by law, such an exercise would be  only  an  exercise  in  futility
because the Executing Court does not have  any  option  but  to  reject  the
petition.  In such a situation, the judgment under appeal is set  aside  and
the Appeal is allowed with a  cost  of  Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees  Ten  Thousand)
payable by Respondent no.1 to the Appellant.


                                       ……………………………J.
                                       [ANIL R. DAVE]






                                       ……………………………J.
                                       [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi.
April 11, 2014.

                           -----------------------
5


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.