CHALLAMANE HUCHHA GOWDA Vs. M R TIRUMALA
LAWS(SC)-2003-12-13
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
December 08,2003
CHALLAMANE HUCHHA GOWDA
Appellant
VERSUS
M.R.TIRUMALA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
VENKATASUBBA RAO V. NARAYANA RAO [REFERRED 3.]RAM AUTAR V. SHEO PIAREY LAL [REFERRED 4.]
ASAN KUTTI V. KOYAMAN KUTTI [REFERRED 8.]
KISHNU LAL V. HARDEVUI KAUR [REFERRED 9.]
MST HIRANIA VS. SM RAM PIARI [REFERRED 11.]
DURGA PRASAD VS. RAM LAKHAN [REFERRED]
PRATAP KISHORE PATNAIK VS. RAMA CHANDRA PATRA [REFERRED 14.]
MARUTI SHIDALAPPA VS. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA CHAUGULE [REFERRED 12.]
PARMANAND VERMA VS. SATNARAIN PRASAD [REFERRED 10.]
BEHARI LALL VS. GOPAL KRISHNA PATHAK [REFERRED 13.]
MAHBOOB KHAN VS. SHAIKH MAJID HUSAIN [REFERRED 7.]
RAOJI BABURAO VS. BANSILAL NARAYAN MARWARI [REFERRED 2.]
PACHIAYEE VS. VALLIMUTHU VELAN [REFERRED 5.]
JYOTISH CHANDRA SIKDAR VS. SURENDRA NATH DAS [REFERRED 6.]
Cited Judgements :-
JAYAKAR JOSEPH VS. B RAVEENDRA BOSE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-426] [RELIED ON]RAM KARAN GUPTA VS. J. S. EXIM LTD [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
K. B. HEMCHAND VS. K. J. SHANKAR [LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-479] [REFERRED TO]
M. P. BUS OPERATOR ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
DASMI RAM VS. TILU DEVI AND ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
AMARAVATI RAJADHANI VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2023-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
APORV JINDAL DIRECTOR JINDAL FROZEN FOOD PVT LTD VS. AMIT KUMAR KUBBA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-9-61] [REFERRED TO]
GURUSAMYPILLAI VS. ATHINARAYANAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (NTPC) VS. MEGHALAYA POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(MEGH)-2021-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM KUMRIA AND ORS. VS. PHARMA VENTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-322] [REFERRED TO]
ELECTION OFFICER VS. PARBATBHAI SAVABHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2020-2-480] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH JAGANNATH KHANDELWAL VS. KUNDANLAL PERUMAL CHHABRIYA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-1-119] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV SUD VS. RAM CHAND RALLAN [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. AMAR PREM ROADWAYS AND ANR. VS. SMT. GEETARANI JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-331] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL SINGH VS. MEENAKSHI NEMA [LAWS(MPH)-2016-2-82] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KALANI & ANOTHER VS. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
P.V.CHERIAN VS. GEORGE BABU [LAWS(KER)-2016-1-113] [REFERRED TO]
K. V. SRINIVASULU NAIDU VS. V. BHASKAR [LAWS(APH)-2023-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS VS. BHEEM SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-147] [REFERRED TO]
HANU REDDY REALTY INDIA PVT LTD VS. JIGNESH [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
MR. SWAPAN DEY VS. SMT. ARUNDHATI DEY NEE PATRA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2018-6-172] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDALA VEERA V SATYANARAYANA VS. CHANDALA SESHA RATNAM AND ORS [LAWS(APH)-2017-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAM DAS VS. MAMPI DAS [LAWS(GAU)-2007-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
ACME PAPERS LIMITED VS. M P FINANCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-2010-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH VS. PARMODH SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2007-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
SADHU FORGING LIMITED VS. CONTINENTAL ENGINES LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-401] [REFERRED TO]
BANGARU KRISHNARJUNA AND 3 OTHERS VS. DASARI ATCHUTAMBA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
GANTH SUBBAYAMMA VS. VETSA SATYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-2024-1-166] [REFERRED TO]
BABU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-7-224] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI ASHA PAREKH VS. MADHAV MOTORS STORES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2021-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KUSUM LATA BANSAL VS. SRI AVADHESH KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA RANI VS. SUDHIR SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-369] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S. Rajendra Babu, J. -
(1.)Leave Granted.
(2.)In execution of a decree the executing Court brought the properties owned by the Petitioner-Judgment Debr for sale. Proclamation was published on 19/07/1992. on 26/08/1992 the scheduled properties were put up for auction. The final bid was offered by respondent No. 1 in Court on 28/08/1992. On 25/09/1992 the Petitioner-Judgment Debr paid the entire decretal amount gether with the cost the Respondent No 2 -Decree Holder accompanied by memorandum of objections for confirmation of sale. A memo was also filed praying close the execution proceedings. On 30/10/1992 another Memo was filed in the Executing Court reporting the payment of the decree amount. Then the executing Court directed the Petitioner - Judgment Debr pay solatium the Respondent No. 1 - Auction Purchaser. Executing Court also noted that the Respondent No. 1 - Auction Purchaser was not ready accept the solatium amount. In the meanwhile, on 13/11/1992 Respondent No 1 -Auction Purchaser filed an Interlocury Application under Order 21, Rule 92 of CPC for confirmation of sale. On 24/07/1993 the Petitioner - Judgment Debr filed an application treat the earlier objection dated 25/09/1992 as an application under Order 21, Rule 89 of CPC. However a separate application was also filed under Order 21, Rule 89 or CPC with a prayer for condoning the delay. The execution Court held that the objection filed by the Petitioner -Judgment Debr on 25/09/1992 could be treated as application under Order 21, Rule 89 of CPC. Predominantly noting the fact that the Petitioner -judgment Debr has paid the entire decree amount and that the sale was yet be confirmed the executing Court set aside the sale. Accordingly the execution proceeding was closed.
(3.)On Appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1 - Auction Purchaser, the first Appellate Court reversed the Order passed by the Executing Court. Aggrieved by the findings of the first Appellate Court, the Petitioner - Judgment Debr moved a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court. High Court found that an objection can never be treated as an application within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 89 or 90; that the later application was filed is barred by limitation; that the5 of Limitation Act is not applicable in the instant case; that the deposit was not made within the prescribed date; that there is no evidence the effect that the value of property is more than the bid / purchase price; that the question of adequacy of the sale price is irrelevant as it is outside the scope of Rule 89 of Order 21. For these reasons the revision petition was dismissed. This judgment is impugned before us.
(2.)In execution of a decree the executing Court brought the properties owned by the Petitioner-Judgment Debr for sale. Proclamation was published on 19/07/1992. on 26/08/1992 the scheduled properties were put up for auction. The final bid was offered by respondent No. 1 in Court on 28/08/1992. On 25/09/1992 the Petitioner-Judgment Debr paid the entire decretal amount gether with the cost the Respondent No 2 -Decree Holder accompanied by memorandum of objections for confirmation of sale. A memo was also filed praying close the execution proceedings. On 30/10/1992 another Memo was filed in the Executing Court reporting the payment of the decree amount. Then the executing Court directed the Petitioner - Judgment Debr pay solatium the Respondent No. 1 - Auction Purchaser. Executing Court also noted that the Respondent No. 1 - Auction Purchaser was not ready accept the solatium amount. In the meanwhile, on 13/11/1992 Respondent No 1 -Auction Purchaser filed an Interlocury Application under Order 21, Rule 92 of CPC for confirmation of sale. On 24/07/1993 the Petitioner - Judgment Debr filed an application treat the earlier objection dated 25/09/1992 as an application under Order 21, Rule 89 of CPC. However a separate application was also filed under Order 21, Rule 89 or CPC with a prayer for condoning the delay. The execution Court held that the objection filed by the Petitioner -Judgment Debr on 25/09/1992 could be treated as application under Order 21, Rule 89 of CPC. Predominantly noting the fact that the Petitioner -judgment Debr has paid the entire decree amount and that the sale was yet be confirmed the executing Court set aside the sale. Accordingly the execution proceeding was closed.
(3.)On Appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1 - Auction Purchaser, the first Appellate Court reversed the Order passed by the Executing Court. Aggrieved by the findings of the first Appellate Court, the Petitioner - Judgment Debr moved a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court. High Court found that an objection can never be treated as an application within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 89 or 90; that the later application was filed is barred by limitation; that the5 of Limitation Act is not applicable in the instant case; that the deposit was not made within the prescribed date; that there is no evidence the effect that the value of property is more than the bid / purchase price; that the question of adequacy of the sale price is irrelevant as it is outside the scope of Rule 89 of Order 21. For these reasons the revision petition was dismissed. This judgment is impugned before us.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.