Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND Mrs. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
M.P. Electricity Board, Rampur, Appellant
Versus
M/s. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1995 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4509 of 1987)
Decided on 3-1-1995.
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 47 - Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 5 - Compensation Payable - Pay interest - Appellant decree holder Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board is a statutory corporation constituted Section Indian Electricity Act Government of Madhya Pradesh had granted a respondent under said Act for generating and supplying electricity to consumers - Appellant exercised option of purchasing respondent undertaking as provided by Section Act- Accordingly possession of undertaking was delivered to appellant but while doing so respondent did not deliver possession of properties described in Schedule-I and Schedule II to plaint- appellant was therefore obliged file Civil Suit for obtaining possession of said properties on ground that they form part of undertaking- suit was decreed by Trial Court respondent and some other persons preferred an appeal to Madhya Pradesh High Court being First Appeal respondent raised a contention in said appeal that property mentioned in Schedule-II to plaint was sold to other appellants and therefore did not form part of undertaking- This plea was rejected by High Court which held that property in both Schedules did form part of undertaking- Rule dismissing appeal High Court observed- Court may however add that would be open to defendant -Held, First respondent to institute a suit or adopt such other proceeding as may be open first respondent to institute suit or adopt such other proceeding as may be open to him in accordance with law and to direct that such proceedings are taken within a period of three months from today first respondent shall be entitled to claim benefit of Section Limitation Act for period spent in pursuing proceedings Section including period spent in appellate courts counsel for appellant made a grievance that possession of all suit properties have not been delivered to appellant and that first respondent and other parties at its instance and on its behalf are raising obstruction in obtaining possession of properties- Court have already referred to observation of executing court that possession of suit properties was delivered to appellant through Court even Salve learned counsel for first respondent affirmed said and stated that first respondent is not in possession of any of suit properties and that they were delivered to appellant as recorded by executing court- It is made clear that appellant is entitled to take possession and in possession of all suit properties without any obstruction by respondent or any person claiming through - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:—Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant. The Civil Revision Petition was preferred against the Judgment of the Third Additional District Judge of the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur in Execution Case No. 17-A of 1970 whereunder the learned Judge had allowed the application filed by the respondent-judgment-debtor.
3. The appellant-decree-holder, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, is a statutory corporation constituted under Section 5 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The Government of Madhya Pradesh had granted a licence to the respondent under the said Act for generating and supplying electricity to consumers at Bilaspur. The appellant exercised the option of purchasing the respondent undertaking on 15-1-1968 and 5-4-1964 as provided by Section 6 of the Act. Accordingly, the possession of the undertaking was delivered to the appellant but while doing so, the respondent did not deliver possession of properties described in Schedule-I and Schedule II to the plaint. The appellant was, therefore, obliged to file the Civil Suit No. 17-A of 1960 for obtaining possession of the said properties on the ground that they form part of the undertaking. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 25th August, 1973. The respondent and some other persons preferred an appeal to the Madhya Pradesh High Court being First Appeal No. 39 of 1974. The respondent raised a contention in the said appeal that the property mentioned in Schedule-II to the plaint was sold to other appellants and, therefore, did not form part of the undertaking. This plea was rejected by the High Court which held that the property in both the Schedules did form part of the undertaking. Rule dismissing the appeal the High Court observed. "We may, however, add that it would be open to the defendant No. 1 to seek compensation for these properties in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law." The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
4. The appellant took out execution of the decree, wherein the first respondent filed objections purporting to be under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code to the effect that the compensation payable to him for the suit property should be determined and should be directed to be paid to him (sic) a said proceeding itself. This objection was upheld by the Executing Court which found that the book value of the Schedule-I properties is Rs. 1,15,000/- and that of Schedule-II properties, Rs. 9,574.50 paise, a total of Rs. 1.24,574/-. The objections filed by the respondent were allowed in the following terms:
"In the result, the application is allowed. It is ordered that the M.P. Electricity Board (Decree-Holder) shall within two months from today deposit in Court for being paid to the applicants/judgment-debtors compensation of Rs. 1,24,574.50 (Rs. One lac twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred seventy four and paise fifty only,) failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest calculated at the bank rate of Reserve Bank of India, plus one per cent from today till payment. The applicants shall be entitled to receive the compensation on payment of requisite court fees as provided by law."
5. The executing court recorded in Para 10 of its order that possession of the suit properties was ultimately delivered to the decree holder on 27-12-83 through the process of this Court in the present execution proceedings."
6. It is against the said order that the appellant filed a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court. The appellants contention was that the determination of compensation is outside the purview of the executing court and outside the purview of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code as well. Relying upon the observations made in the Judgment of the High Court in First Appeal. No. 39 of 74, the appellant contended that the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
