LexDESH BANDHU GUPTA versus N L. ANAND AND RAJINDER SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ·B DESH BANDHU GUPTA v. N L. ANANp AND RAJINDER SINGH SEPTEMBER 17, 1993 [K. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order 21 Rules 66, 67 and 54 ( 1-A)---Sale of property in satisfaction of Court decree-Service of notice on judgment- debtor mandatory-Sale proclamation-Furnishing relevant and material par- C ticulars-Need for---Court to apply its mind-Obligation of Court to state valuation given by both the parties-In the absence of notice failure on the part of judgment-Debtor would not preclude him from raising objections after sale. Section 47, Order 21 Rules 90, 17 (4), 64, 66 (2) and Appendix E, Fann D 27-Extent of property to be sold in execution-Should be only to such an extent as to satisfy the decree Court to apply its mind-Non-application of mind a material irregularity-Would vitiate sale-But not mere irregularity. Order 21 Rules 1 (1) and 23 (2)-Mode of payment of decretal E money-Arrears of rent deposited by tenant-Decretal amount not deposited-Executing Court could direct the withdrawal of rent and deposit the same towards decretal amount-Or consider tenant's objection and pass an order under Rule 23 (2)-<Jmission to consider objections raised by judgment debto~Whether appealable. F Order 21 Rule JO-Jurisdiction of Executing Court-Value of property sold at the execution-Not detenninative of-Where decree in execution is within its jurisdiction-Executing Court has jurisdiction. Section 47-0rder 21 Rule 90-Application for setting aside execution G sale-Necessary parties-Who are-lmpleading all joint purchasers-Whether necessary. Appellant judgment-debtor was a tenant. The landlady applied for bis eviction for default in payment of rent. She sold the property to the first respondent who got himself impleaded in the eviction proceedings and H also independently sought eviction of the appellant. During the pendency 346 -~ D.B. GUPTA v. N.L. ANAND 347 of the proceedings appellant deposited rent to the extent of Rs. 13,440 in A the name of the landlady. The decree for eviction made against the tenant was confirmed by this Court. The suit of the first respondent for the arrears of rent was decreed for a sum of Rs. 6,419.98. Appellant filed a Writ Petition and the High Court directed that the amount deposited by the appellant be credited to the account of the first respondent. An execution petition was filed by the first respondent for sale of a plot belonging to the appellant, and a warrant of attachment was issued. Appellant filed an objection petition claiming that since he had already deposited more than the decretal amount, the decree stood satis- fied and became inexecutable. He also challenged the jurisdiction of the Execution Court. The Court passed an order for sale of the property. Admittedly, the appellant was neither given notice nor was he present; nor was he aware of the order. Sale warrant was issued and in the imction held, the said plot was sold to the second respondent and his wife for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000. On coming to know of the sale, appellant filed a petition challenging the sale on the grounds that it was collusive and fraudulent; that the price was inadequate; that there was no notice issued to him and that there was B c D no sale proclamation. The application was rejected and the sale was confirmed hy the trial court. The appeal preferred by the appellant was E dismissed by the appellate court. The revision petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Under Order 21 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code an F application for execution should be made to the court ''which passed the decree". Therefore, even if the value of the property sold at the execution is more than Rs. 25,000 it does not take away the jurisdiction of the trial court. Admittedly the decree in execution for Rs. 7,780.33 is within the jurisdiction of the trial court, which passed the decree. [345-F-G] G Banwar Lal v. Smt. Prem Lata, A.I.R. (1990) S.C. 623, relied on. 1.2. By amending rule 1(1) of Order 21 C.P.C. in 1976 a right has been given to the judgment-debtor to pay the decree debt either by deposit- ing it into the Executing Court, or sending it by other modes of payment H 348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A with intimation to the decree holder so that the liability to pay interest ceases from that date. It is an enabling provision for the bene
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.