GAS POINT PETROLEUM INDIA LTD. versus RAJENDRA MAROTHI & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 10-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
433
GAS POINT PETROLEUM INDIA LTD.
v.
RAJENDRA MAROTHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 619 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 10, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, rules 64, 84, 85
and 86 – Execution proceedings – Decree passed in civil suit –
Property of judgment debtor auctioned and sold on 03.11.2011 in
favour of respondent No.1 for recovery of amount – Appellant filed
objection before the Executing Court, contending, inter-alia, that
the property was purchased by him from judgment debtor on
31.08.1999 and they were in possession of the same – Executing
Court overruled the objections – Lower Appellate Court allowed
appeal and remitted the matter back to the Executing Court – Writ
petition – High Court set aside the order of lower Appellate Court
observing that appellant failed to plead and establish the nature of
irregularity or fraud committed in sale and therefore, no fault could
be found in the order of the Executing Court –  On appeal, held: As
per Order XXI, rules 84 and 85, the auction purchaser has to deposit
25% of the sale amount immediately on being declared to be the
purchaser and full amount of purchase-money is to be paid by the
purchaser into the Court before the Court closes on fifteenth day
from the sale of the property – In the present case, the purchaser-
respondent No.1 did not deposit 25% of the amount as required
under Order XXI, rule 84 immediately – Even the balance 75% of
the amount was not deposited as required under Order XXI, rule 85
–  Full amount of purchase-money in the present case was deposited
on 04.11.2011 i.e., after the period prescribed /provided under Order
XXI, rule 85 – Evidently, there was non-compliance of mandatory
provisions of Order XXI, rules 84 and 85 and therefore, the sale
was vitiated – Even otherwise, when the property in question was
put to auction on 18.10.2011 the appellant had already purchased
the said property as far as back on 31.08.1999 as there was no
injunction with respect to the said property – When the property
was put to auction, the judgment debtor was not the owner and
therefore, the same could not have been put to auction – Under the
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 433
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
circumstances, the Executing Court erred in overruling the objections
raised by the appellant – Order of the High Court, quashed – Order
passed by lower Appellate Court, restored.
Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Ors. v. Sardar Sayed
Ahmed Sayed Mahmad and Anr, (1955) 1 SCR 108 and
Rosali V. v. Taico Bank and Ors. (2009) 17 SCC 690 –
relied on.
Case Law Reference
(1955) 1 SCR 108
relied on
Para 8.1
(2009) 17 SCC 690
relied on
Para 8.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 619 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2016 of the High Court
of M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur in WP No.3342 of 2015.
Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., Arjun Garg, Shobhit Jain, Aakash
Nandolia, Ms. Sagun Shrivastava, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sarthak Nema, Ms. Ankita Khare, Ramsakha
Kushwaha, Yashovardhan Jain, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 3342/2015, by which, the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by respondent No. 1
herein and has set aside the order passed by the lower Appellate Court
and has restored the order passed by the Executing Court with respect
to the property in question, the original respondent No. 1– objector before
the Executing Court has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as
under: -
2.1 There was a dispute between National Ginni Enterprises and
Smt. Gayatri Agrawal with respect to the L.P.G. gas agreement. A civil
suit No. 07-A/98 was filed by the said Smt. Gayatri Agrawal against the
National Ginni Enterprises. The learned Trial Court passed a decree by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
435
directing the judgment debtor (National Ginni Enterprises) to provide
L.P.G. gas as per the conditions of the agreement. The decree provided
that if the defendants are unable to implement the said order, in
alternatively it was directed that the plaintiff was entitled to get the amount
of Rs. 2,38,450/- + Rs. 23,500/- (sic) relating to cost of the gas cylinders
and regulators respe

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