LexHIMMATBHAI SON OF CHAGANLAL versus RIKHILAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
> I
I
'
•
I "i .
•
429
Hlt\1MATBHAI SON OF CHAGANLAL
I'.
RIKHILAL AND ORS.
February 28, 1978
LR. s. SARKARIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.]
Civil I'rvctdure Code, Order 21, Rules 89 and 90-Application by one judg-
n1enr del;t{)r under Rule 90-JVhether bars mainll'nance of application by other
Judgment debtors under Rule 89.
In cxccutioo of a money decree, a house belonging to respondent~ Nos. 1
to 16 and 18, was sold to the appellant herein, in a court auction.
Judgment
debtor. B.i.bu1a1 respondent No. 18 herein, preferrcJ an application under Order,
A
21, Rule 90 C.P.C., for setting aside thei sale. Later, on behalf of himself and
C
two other judgment debtors, he filed another application under R.ule 89,
an~
deposited the decretal a.nd compensation amounts.
The Trial Court, and in
appeal, a single Judge of the High Court rejected the latter application on the
ground that its maintenance \vas barred by the pending applicr.tion under Rule
90.
A Division Bench of the High Court, allowed a Letters Patent Appeal, but
gra.nted a certificate of fitness.
Disposing of the entire matter, and allowing the. application under Order 21,
Rule 89. the Court
D
HELD : The application of one judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90,
does not in any n1anner stand in the way of other judgment debtors, maKing an
application under Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C. [432 F-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2337 of 1968.
(From the Judgment aud Order dated the 2nd May, 1968 of the
E
Madhya Pradesh High Court in L.P.A. No. 7 of 1967).
G. L. Sanghi and K. J. John for the appellant.
S.S. Khanduja and R. K. Shukla for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4. 5,
8 to 14 & 16 .
Ex-parte: For Respondents Nos. 3, 6, 7, 15, 17 & 18.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KAILASAM, J.-This appeal is by the auction-purchaser on a
certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
against its order setting aside the decisions of Single ;r udge and the
District Judge and directing the District Judge to deal with the appli-
cation under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code, filed by the
Judgment-debtors Bhagwandas and Rameshwar
Prasad
on
7th
February, 1966.
The decree-holder, Smt. Bittibai, the. 17th respondent herein,
in execution of a money-decree in her favour against respondents
1 to 16 and 18 herein sold a house belonging to the judgment-
debtors on 8th January, 1966.
It was purchased in the court-
auction by the appellant herein.
On 17th January 1966, res-
pondent 18 Babula!, one of the Judgment-debtors made an
! 6-277SCI/78
F
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R
application in the Court of District Judge, Sagar, under Order 21,
Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the sale.
On 7th
February, 1966 an application was filed under Order 21, Rule 89.
by Babula!,
the. 18th
respondent, on
behalf of himself
and
respondents 1, 4 and 7 and the decretal amount of Rs. 27,267 /90p.
and Rs. 2,300/- as compensation, totalling in all Rs. 29,567 /90p.
was deposited.
The appellant, auction-purchaser, resisted the appIT-
cation filed by the judgment-debtors, under Order 21, Rule 89, on
the ground that as an application under ,Order 21, Rule 90,
was already pending the application under Rule 89 is not main-
tainable.
The trial court by an order dated 9th Augnst, 1966 he.Id that
since the application of the judgment-debtors under Order 21, Rule
90, was pending the application under Order 21, Rule 89, was liable
to be dismissed as not competent. It further held that the application
filed by in Judgment-debtor, Babula!, dated 7th February, 1966 was
not a proper application under Order 21, Rule 89.
The judgment-
debtors filed an appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and
the learned Single Judge who heard the appeal held that the appli-
cation dated 17th January, 1966 under Order 21, Rule 90, was a
bar to the maintenance of the application dated 7th February, 1966
under Order 21, Rule 89, and dismissed the appeal of the judgment-
debtors on 24th February, 1967. The Judgment-debtors filed a Letters
Patent Appeal to a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court.
Tile Division Bench allowed the appeal of the judgment-
debtors and set aside the judgment of the courts below on 2nd May,
1968.
The decree-holder filed an application for granting a certi-
ficate of fitness which the High Court granted by its order dated 18th
SepteExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.