TYAGI, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals are filed separately by the two partners of the judgment-debtor firm Messrs Maliram Nemichand Jain against the order of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 5th of September, 1972, dismissing the objection petition filed by the judgment-debtor and passing the order of the confirmation of sale of the property belonging to the judgment debtor.
(2.) RAJASTHAN Financial Corporation, Jaipur had obtained a decree against Messrs Maliram Nemichand Jain and its partners Damodarlal and Gappulal and in the execution of that decree the building known as Hind Hotel situate in the centre of Jaipur City was sold. In the beginning, the execution proceedings were initiated in the court of the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, but later on the execution case was transferred by the High Court to the court of the District Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, as the Presiding Officer of the court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur felt that on account of his relationship with the judgment-debtors he will not be able to take any proceedings in the matter. The property of the judgment-debtor was first of all auctioned on 5-3-1970 for Rs. 16 lacs, but this sale was set aside and the District Judge, Jaipur District ordered the property to be sold in two lots as requested by the judgment debtors. In pursuance of the order of the District Judge dated 6th of June, 1970, the property was sold in two lots, one lot constituted of six show rooms and one shop whereas in the other lot the hotel portion of the building and one show room were sold. These two lots were put to sale. The first lot constituting of show rooms and one shop fetched the highest bid of Rs. 5,21,151 where as the highest bidder for the hotel and one show room was for Rs. 7 lacs. A compromise between the parties thereafter was effect on 10th of April, 1971, wherein the sale of the first lot consisting of the show rooms and one shop was confirmed and the hotel portion of the building with one show room was again to be sold. In pursuance of this compromise, a fresh proclamation was issued for the auction of the hotel and it was mentioned therein that the sale shall take place from 22nd of July, 1971. The sale was accordingly conducted by Bhanwarlal, Nazir attached to the court of District Judge, Jaipur City. The sale continued at the site from 22nd of July, 1971 to 1st of August, 1971. From 2nd of August the venue of of sale was changed from the site to the court premises On 3rd of August, 1971 the sale was adjourned to 9th of August when the auction proceedings again started, but, it was again postponed to 12th of August when the highest bid was of Rs. 8,22,000. Throughout the auction proceedings there were only two bidders, namely, Gopikishan and Vijay Kumar Patni. On 13th of August, 1971 the hammer fell and the highest bid of the auction-purchaser was accepted by the court. Objections were filed by Gappulal and Damodarlal separately on 10th of September, 1971 and 11th of September, 1971 which were dismissed by the learned District Judge without affording any opportunity to the judgment debtors to adduce evidence in support of their objection An appeal was filed against the order of the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 23rd of November, 1971 and this Court vide its judgment dated 31st of March, 1972 remanded the case to the file of the District Judge with a direction that the application under Order 21, rule 90 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the partners of the judgment-debtor firm may be decided after giving the parties an opportunity to adduce their evidence on the points raised by them. The judgment-debtors examined as many as 8 witnesses to support their objections. The auction-purchaser also examined Gopikishan as A. P. W. 1 and the decree-holder brought two witnesses Vijaichand Jain (D. H. P. W. 1) and Om Prakash Bhargava (D. H. P. W. 2 ). The learned District Judge, after hearing the arguments of the parties at length, passed the impugned order which has been challenged before this Court, inter alia, on the grounds (1) that the District Judge, Jaipur District had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the objection petitions filed by the appellants under O. 22, rule 90 Code of Civil Procedure as this court was not a competent court because the property was not situated within the jurisdiction of that court; (2) that Bhanwarlal Jain Sales Amin who conducted the auction proceedings, was not competent to do so and therefore the proceedings taken by him are vitiated as having been conducted by an incompetent person; that the proclamation did not mention the valuation of the property which defect goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the sale; and (4) that the auction commuted for more than seven days without issuing a fresh proclamation which contravenes the mandatory provisions of O. 21, r. 69 Code of Civil Procedure and makes the sale illegal. Apart from these objections, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants also drew the attention of this Court to various other irregularities,but we need not mention them here as the appellants did not challenge the finding of the court below about discarding the evidence of the appellants on the ground that the auction could not fetch adequate price for the building as the prospective bidders were not permitted to have a look at the building and furniture which were the subject matter of sale. The first objection relates to the jurisdiction of the court of the District Judge, Jaipur District that conducted the sale of the disputed property in pursuance of the order issued by the High Court transferring the execution case from the court of the District Judge, Jaipur City to the present court. Shri D. D. Gupta, Presiding Officer of the District Court, Jaipur City, Jaipur referred the matter to the High Court expressing his inability to proceed with the execution case as he had some interest in the judgment-debtors. On that reference, the case was transferred by the High Court vide the order of the High Court dated 30th of April, 1970. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the High Court could transfer the case only to such subordinate court which was competent to try or dispose of the matter. According to Mr. Bhargava, the property sold in the execution proceedings was situated in the city of Jaipur which falls within the jurisdiction of the court of the District Judge Jaipur City and, therefore, District Judge of Jaipur District had no territorial jurisdiction to sell the property in auction as the expression "competent" used in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure covers within its ambit both the jurisdictions of the court i. e. pecuniary jurisdiction as well as territorial jurisdiction. The contention is that no territorial jurisdiction could be conferred on the District Judge of Jaipur District by transferring the case to that court as the property auctioned in the execution proceedings did not lie within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court and, therefore District Judge of Jaipur District was not competent to take any proceedings in this matter. In support of this proposition, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants on Ramdas vs. Habibullah (l) and Jannat Husain vs. Gulam Kutubuddin Ahmed (2 ). In our opinion, these authorities are of little help to the appellants as the question raised by the appellants stands decided by our own High Court in Chouthmal vs. Bhonrilal (3 ). Bapna J. while deciding that case expressed his inability to concur in the view expressed by the Allahabad and the Patna High Court and observed that in most of the cases occasion may arise when there is no other competent court which may exercise the territorial jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding within the jurisdiction of the district. In that event, learned Judge expressed his opinion that if the case is to be transferred from the principal District Court, then it would become impossible to transfer that case to any other court if a narrow meaning is given to the word "'competent" used in sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge in that connection observed as follows: 'the competency referred to in sec. 24 must be taken to be only with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction, and I find support for this view in Kishorelal vs. Balkishan, 1932 All 660 (AIR V. l9) (C) and Parshottamdas Chunnilal vs. Bhagubhai Nathubhai, 1932 Bom 486 (AIR vs. 19 (D ). The same view has been taken in F. K. Geyer vs. M. M. Geyer, 1949 Lah 34 (AIR V. 36) (FB) (E ). The contention raised above has no force. "
(3.) WE respectfully agree with the expression given by Bapna J. while interpreting the word "competent" in sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While interpreting the provisions of law, the Court has to take into consideration all the circumstances and if by giving a narrow meaning to the word "competent" in sec. 24 an impossible situation is created, then we shall have to interpret the word in such a way that it may not create bottlenecks for the court to function under certain circumstances. WE are, therefore, of opinion that the District Judge presiding over the District Court of Jaipur District was competent to deal with the execution proceedings in this cases when they were duly transferred under the orders of the High Court. It is vehemently contended that Bhanwarlal Jain who was attached to the court of District Judge, Jaipur City as. Sales Amin was not a competent person to conduct the sale proceedings of the property which was auctioned in pursuance of the order issued by the District Judge of the Jaipur District. The warrant of sale was issued by the learned Judge presiding over the principal court of Jaipur District, Jaipur and it was addressed to the Nazir of the court of District Judge, Jaipur City. It is not disputed that Bhanwarlal Jain was the person who was functioning as Nazir in the court of District Judge, Jaipur City. Contention of Mr. Bhargava is that the District Judge of Jaipur District. Jaipur forwarded the warrant to the District Judge, Jaipur City for service and not to Bhanwarlal Jain. According to the learned counsel addressing the warrant issued under Order 21 rule 66 Civil Procedure Code on 20th of July, 1971 to the Nazir of the court of District judge, Jaipur City would not empower Bhanwarlal to conduct the auction proceedings. Since, according to Mr. Bhargava, the auction proceedings were taken by an incompetent man, the entire sale stands vitiated. Order 21 rule 65 Civil Procedure Code lays down that "save as otherwise prescribed, every sale in execution of a decree shall be conducted by an officer of the Court or by such other person as the Court may appoint in this behalf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ;