Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SAMBASIVA RAO, P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU
Tamma Venkata Pardhasaradhi - Appellant
Versus
Tamma Ramachandra Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 11-11-71
ORDER XXI, RULE 90, C. P. C. - SALE SET ASIDE PETITION - FURNISHING SECURITY OR DEPOSIT - NOTICE TO APPLICANT - MANDATORY REQUIREMENT - COURT'S DISCRETION - MORTGAGE DECREE - LOCUS STANDI OF JUDGMENT-DEBTOR - OFFICIAL RECEIVER IN POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. and Section 47, C. P. C. for setting aside a sale. The lower Court directed the appellant to furnish security or deposit the amount within seven days without giving notice to the appellant. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that the direction to furnish security or make a deposit was not proper and that the petition was not admitted by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the direction of the lower Court to furnish security or make a deposit without notice to the appellant was contrary to law. The court also held that the petition was not admitted by the court and that the lower Court had erred in rejecting the petition on the ground that the appellant had not deposited the amount or furnished security as ordered by the Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the direction of the lower Court to furnish security or make a deposit without notice to the appellant was proper? 2. Whether the petition was admitted by the court? 3. Whether the appellant had locus standi to file the petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the direction of the lower Court to furnish security or make a deposit without notice to the appellant was contrary to law. The court relied on the first proviso to Rule 90 of Order 21, which enables the court to call for security or deposit only before admitting the application for setting aside the sale. The court held that the act of admitting the application is a judicial act and that the intention of the Court to receive the application on file for the purpose of adjudicating on it is the only criterion in such determination. The court also relied on decided cases to support its view that the factum of admitting the petition and the Court's intention to do so should be gathered from the circumstances of each case. 2. The court held that the petition was not admitted by the court. The court noted that the application was unnumbered and that the decree-holder's counsel appeared on his own initiative without being invited by the Court. The court also noted that the decree-holder's representation was essentially in regard to the need for security or deposit. The court held that from these circumstances, it was impossible to gather any intention of the Court to admit the application. 3. The court held that the appellant had locus standi to file the petition. The court noted that the appellant was not the insolvent and that his share of the properties had vested in the Official Receiver appointed for the estate of his father only for the purpose of administration. The court held that the appellant was obviously affected and was very much interested in impugning the sale and that it could not be said that he had no locus standi to file the petition.
Final Decision: The court set aside the decision of the lower Court rejecting the petition of the petitioner and remanded the matter back to the lower Court to restore the petition and to decide, after giving notice to the judgment-debtor, whether he should be directed to furnish security or make a deposit as per the Andhra Pradesh and Madras amendment to Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C., and to dispose of the sale set aside petition in accordance with the law and the observations made above.
( 1 ) THE appellant filed before the lower Court a petition under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. c. and Section 47, C. P. C. for setting aside a sale. The husband of the fourth respondent and father of respondent 5 to 15 obtained a decree on the foot of a mortgage in O. S. No. 32 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court Guntur. The father of the appellant is judgment-debtor No. 1. The appellant is judgment-debtor No. 2 and his brother is judgment-debtor No. 3. The father and brother are respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal. There was a sale of the mortgaged property on 17-7-1968. Alleging that the sale was vitiated by several illegalities and irregularities like absence of notice, fraud, etc. , and that the sale caused substantial loss to him the appellant filed the petition for setting aside the sale.
( 2 ) THE petition was filed on 14-8-1968. The Courts office took an objection that neither security was furnished nor the decretal amount was deposited and the decretal amount was deposited and accepting the office note the Court directed the appellant on 22-8-1968 to furnish security or deposit the amount within seven days. This was obviously done without giving notice to the appellant and out giving notice to the appellant and calling upon him to show cause why he should not be directed to furnish security or make a deposit. The appellant represented the petition on 29-8-1968 stating that nit was an application not only under that it was an application not only under Order 21, Rule 90 but also under Sec. 47, C. P. C. that in any case the security or deposit Rule 90 is only discretionary and neither furnishing security nor making a deposit was necessary; and that notice of the objection might be sent to the respondent. This view of the appellant was not accepted by the Court. When the petition came up before the Court on 12-9-1968 the decree-holders counsel appeared on his own accord without Courts notice and sought an opportunity of making his representation before the petition was numbered. Thereupon the petition was posted to 20th of September, 1968. The decree-holders appeared through a counsel and the petition was adjourned to 11-10-1968 for objections were filed on behalf of the decree-holders. The petition was still unnumbered and arguments were heard thereon on 26th and 28th of November, 1968 and ultimately the Court rejected the unnumbered petition on 30th of November, 1968. The present appeal is directed against the said order or rejection.
( 3 ) TWO principle questions appear to have been raised by the appellant before the lower Court. Firstly, once the Court had heard the advocates of the respondents and their objections it was tantamount that the court had taken cognizance of the petition and registered it and when that is done the court had no more jurisdiction to require the appellant either to furnish security or to make a deposit under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. Secondly, the petition filed for setting aside the sale not so much under Order 21, Rule 90 but was one under Section 47 which does not require any security or deposit. In the light of the aforesaid two objections it was argued that the insistence on furnishing security or making a deposit was not proper. These contentions, as we have said, did not find favour at the hands of the lower Court. They have been reiterated before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has, in addition, argued that the direction of the Court dated 22nd of August, 1968 to the appellant either to furnish security or to deposit money within seven days without notice to the appellant is contrary to law. It has also been submitted that since this is a mortgage decree no further security is, in fact, necessary in this case.
( 4 ) WE will first take up for consideration the contention that once the Court has heard the advocates of the respondents and their objections it was tantamount that the petition for setting aside the sale was registered and take
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.