LexSADHURAM BANSAL versus PULIN BEHARI SARKAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
!582 B c D E F H SADHURAM BANSAL v. PULIN BEHARI SARKAR & ORS. , April 26, 1984 [FA2(AL ALI, A. VAR~DARMAN AND SABYASACHI MUKHARll, JJ.j ' 'Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Order XL Receiver ·appointed by Cofirt-Property in custody of receiver-Inter- ference. with possession, not to be encouraged-No party can acquire title or right over property in possession of receiver. •. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 145 Order passed in prOceedings under this section-Does not affect title- t;Jf parlies to disputed premises-However reflects iactuin. of possesJi01t. " AdministrGtion of Justice.-Socia! Justice-Courts . no long~r merely Pro- tector of ltgal rights-Technicalities of law dnd procedure not to be in~istecf' upon--Subst_antial ju1tice to be meted out to parties~Necessity of. In a suit filed in the High C(lurt for a declaration and relief in respect ·or several properties, the OffiCial Receiver of the High Court was appointedc Receiver. On tbe request of the parties, the Official Receiver, c!ecided to• sell one of the properties with the permission of the <;curt. 1he price of the property was fixed at Rs. 3.S lakhs. The appellant o.ffered .a sum of" ·Rs. 4 lakhs· for purchase of the property,. and by hi; advocate's letter" enclosed a. draft for.Rs. l h!kh, being 1/4 of the amount. A-mee.ting \vas.. held in the presence of the plaintiff and their counsel, an.d at the meeting the_ offer received from the appellant was consideied and· it was decided that the offer of Rs. 4 lakh by bank: draft .. The Official Rc&eiver accepted the· offer of the .appellant, ·communicated the· accep.tance ~nd ~uested the· appellant to deposit the balance amount. The Official Receiver, thereafter- moved the High Court for directions.-. ·to rem'ov,e re~pondents 1 to 4 on. the ground' that they had trespassed i.nt°'"" the property a few months earlier. Respbodents l to 4"moved an 3ppli'" cation for being impleaded in the suit and· contend,!d that .they were· residing with their fdmilies under a licence since 1975 and had coastructedi pllcca-,huts thereon and. that with the knowledge of this continuous ·posses- sion, the parties _to .the suit -have filed the suit among themselves without.· impleadiog them (respondents 1 to 4). • 1 ' ' • • • Si\DHURAM V. )'. ll· SARKAR • The Single .Judge..,rejected the aforesaid contentions ofresPc;indent.s 1 to 4 ·and held that though they wer·e prepared to offer the sum of Rs. l · iakh more thin the appellant the property could not be sold to them. The Division Bench, however allo\\•ctJ their appeal, directed. respon .. dents I to 4 to pay to the Official Receiver a sum of Rs. 1.25 lakhs immedia,_ttY and tho balance of Rs. 3.75 lakhs theTeafter and on such payme-nt ordered sale of the disputed proPerfy. to respondents .1 to 4 and their 34 nominee~ oo the ground that the Court should do s.ocial just_ice and in doing such justice no te;hnicality of law would stand in its way. ' Dismissing the Appeal to this Court, HELD·: [P<r Fazal Ali & Sabyasachi Mukha.rji~JJ MaJority] In administering justice-social or legal-jurisprudence h_as shifted a~ay from finespi.ln technicaUties and abstract rUJes t.o· recognition of bu man beings as human beings. The Division Bench of the High Court ti ~ h:ld adopted ihe above apJ)roach, and no law is brca·ched ~y the view t'aken by i~. -It is improper for this Court in exercise uf tbe discretion vested under Art. 136 of the Constitufion to interfere with that dechion. ' [595-_FG; 622A·B] [Pet Fazal Ali, J.] J~ In our opinion, there appears· to be some misapprehen&ion about what actually social justice ts. There is no ritualistic formµla or any magical charm in the cOncept of social justice. All that it meanS is that as b~t\veen _two parties if a deal is m:!dc witb one party without serious ·detriment to the otherJ then the Court W0uld lean in favour of the weaker section of the society. Social justice is the recogniticn of greater good to larger num'ier without d~privation of acc1ued legal rights of anybody. If such a thing can be done· then indeed social· _justic~·rr.u;t prevail over any "tcchnic:"il rule. It iS: in response to·the felt necessities of tim~." f'nd ·situation in order to do greater good to a larger numbe·r CV(D though it might detract frpm some technical- rule in f,1vour of a party. Living accomrnO .. dation is a hum2n Problen1 fOr vast millions i"r our count
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.