L. MOOLCHAND AND ORS. versus FATIMA SULTANA BEGUM AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 14-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

L. MOOLCHAND AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
FATIMA SULTANA BEGUM AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 14, 1995 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
S.151, 0. 21 R. 9f>-Court sale-Objections tcr-Maintainability 
of-Held, interests of justice are primary consideration in deciding a petition C 
under S. 151-High Court rightly permitted trial court to examine the objec-
tions. 
The purchasers of the property sold in a sale conducted by receivers 
appointed by Court in an administrative suit, filed the present appeal 
against the order of the High Court directing the Trial Court to decide on D 
merits the application under S.151 CPC raising objections to the sale. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In an administrative suit, the receivers appointed by the 
Court to perform a function are agents of the Court and like a good E 
principal, the Court can put the receivers to accountability. To awaken the 
role of the Court in that behalf, applications by the parties connected with 
the suit, are perfectly in order to obviate any doubt entering in that regard 
and to effect a sense of transparency so that no blame or aspersion is cast 
on the Court for its having handled the matter in a particular way. The F 
Court's role is of a balancer. [230-F-G] 
2. Interests of justice are the primary consideration in granting or 
not granting prayers in a petition under S. 151 CPC. No rule or procedure 
can curtail that power of the Court. The High Court has rightly permitted 
the Trial Court to examine the objections raised. [230-H; 231-A] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1081 of 
1976. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.76 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Appeal against Order No. 15/74. 
H 
229 
230 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1995]SUPP.5S.C.R. 
A 
B. Kanta Rao for the Appellants. 
A. Subba Rao for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
In an administrative suit, the parties had agreed for sale of a property 
at Ootacamund in the State of Tamil Nadu. The receivers appointed by the 
Court for the purpose sold the said property. The appellants herein are 
the purchasers thereof. Some of the parties to the suit raised objections to 
the sale purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 90 read with section 151 
C CPC. An objection was raised before the Trial Court that such objections 
were not maintainable. The Trial Court framed a preliminary issue and 
went into the matter. It rejected the application being not maintainable. 
The respondents herein took the matter in appeal to the High Court which 
was placed before a Division Bench for disposal. The High Court agreed 
with the Trial Court that an objection under Order 21, Rule 90 CPC to 
D such a sale did not lie. But, since the sale had been effected by the Court 
through its appointed receivers, the High Court viewed that the Court had 
full control and grip over the matter, empowering it to oversee whether the 
sale had been properly conducted and if there was any other objection 
thereto, what was the merit of the objection. This role of the Court was . 
E 
spelled out by the High Court to be within the domain of Section 151 CPC 
which recognises and preserves the inherent powers of the Civil Court. It 
is for that purpose that the High Court effected a remand to the Trial 
Court to go into the matter, J:iolding the application filed by the respon-
dents maintainable. That view is in question before this Court. 
F 
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are in total unison 
with the views expressed by the High Court. In an administrative suit, the 
receivers· appointed by the Court to perform (a) function are agents of the 
Court and like a good principal, the Court can put the receivers to 
accountability. To awaken the role of the Court in that behalf, applications 
G by the parties connected with the suit, are perfectly in order to obviate any 
doubt entering in that regard and to effect a sense of transparency so that 
no blame or aspersion is cast on the Court for its having handled the matter 
in a particular. way. The Court's role is of a balancer. 
It has also to be borne in mind that interests of justice are the 
H primary consideration in granting or not granting prayers in a petition 
L. MOOLCHAND v. F.S. BEGUM 
231 
under Sec. 151 CPC. No rule or procedure can curtail that power of the A 
Court. The High Court rightly has pursued that path in permitting the Trial 
Court to examine the objections rais
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.