GANPAT GIRL versus IIND ADDITLONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BALIA & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 15 · Decided: 07-01-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GANPAT G!Rl 
v. 
!IND ADD!TlONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, 
BALIA & ORS. 
JANUARY 7 , 1986 
[E.S, VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
15 
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976 - S. 97 -
Scope of - Amending Act - Effect of - On entire Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908, 
Order 21 Rule 72 (as in force in State of U.P.) -
Whether ceases to operate on commencement of the Code of Civil 
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. 
Code of Civil Procedure prior to its amendment by Code 
of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976, by sub-rules (1) and 
(3) of Rule 72, Order 21 laid down that no holder of a decree 
in execution of which property is sold shall, without the 
express permission of the Court, bid for or purchase the 
property and that where a decree-holder pruchases, by himself 
or through another person, without such permission, the court 
may, if it thinks fit.. on the application of the judgment-
debtor or any oth.ir person whose interests are affected by the 
sale, by order set aside the sale, In the State of Uttar 
Pradesh, the High Court of Allahabad, by an amendment made to 
the aforesaid Rule, deleted sub-rules (1) and (3), The result 
was that in the case of a decree-holder the need for obtaining 
the express permission of the executing court before offering 
'. the bid for or purchasing the property put up for sale under 
sub-rule (1) was not there and the power of the court to set 
aside the sale under sub-rule (3) of Rule 72 in the absence of 
such permission had also been taken away, 
By 
the Amending Act, 
1976 
seve~al amendments were 
carried out to the Code on the basis of the recommendations of 
the Indian Law Commission in its 54th Report in 1973. Since 
there were in force in different parts of India several 
amendments to the code which had been effected by the State 
Legislatures or by the High Courts, 
the Law Commission 
recommended that a new Rule 72-A may be .i<dded to Order 21 in 
which there was reference to sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 72 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1%61 l s.c.R. 
in sub-rule (3) of Rule 72~A. Hence, even though Rule 72 was -1 
not amended by the Amending Act, its retention in the form in 
whieh it was in the code had been recommended by the Law 
Commission. Section 97 ( l) of the Amending Act provides that 
"any amendment 
made, 
or any provision · inserted in the 
principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before 
the commencement· of this Act shall, except in so far as such 
amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of 
the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed," 
Respondent No. 3 obtained a decree for recovery of 1110ney 
on July 29, 1977 against the appellant. In execution of the . 
said decree, 
the 
illllllOveable 
property 
belonging 
to the 
appellant was brought to sale by court on August 4, 1978 and 
at that court sale respondent No.3 was declared as the 
successful 
bidder, 
Before 
the sale was 
confirmed, 
the 
appellant filed an application for setting aside the sale on 
the ground that the decree holder had not obtained prior 
permission of the executing court under Rule 72(1) of Order 21 
of the Code, The executing court set aside the sale, since 
admittedly no 
such permission had been obtained by the 
decree"'holder. 
The District Judge affirmed the aforesaid order in a 
revision petition filed by respondent No.3 - Decree-holder on 
the ground that on the commencement of the Amending Act by 
virtue of section 97(1) thereof the local amendment made to 
Rule 72 of Order 21 of the Code prior to that date ceased to 
operate and the Code as amended by the Amending Act applied to 
the case. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Judge, 
respondent No.3 filed a petition under Art.226 before the High 
Court of Allahabad. The High Court all.owed the Writ Petition 
holding that since the amending Act had not made amendment of 
any kind in so far as Rule 72 of Order 21 was concerned, the 
amendment made by the High Court of Allahabad to Rule 72 of 
Order 21 of the Code prior to the commencement of the Amending 
Act remained intact. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court , 
HELD: 1. The High Court was in error in holding that the 
ameru!.ed Rule 72 of Order 21 which was in force in the State of 
Uttar Pradesh prior to February 1, 1977 continued to be in 
force after that date and that the court sale held in which 
the decree-holder had purchased the property 
without the 
express permission of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.