SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
C.V. BHADANG, J.
Shri Shivprasad B. Kakodkar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Alka S. Nayak - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1061 of 2018
Decided On : 24-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. R.G. Ramani, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Jagannath J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate.

Compliance with procedural requirements under Order XXI, Rule 34 of CPC is essential for the execution of a sale deed in execution proceedings.

Headnote:

Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC - Execution of Sale Deed - The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Executing Court due to non-compliance with Order XXI, Rule 34 of CPC, which requires the Executing Court to serve the draft of the sale deed on the judgment debtors and allow them to file objections before deciding the objection in accordance with the law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, as judgment debtors, challenged the order directing execution of the sale deed in favor of the decree holder, citing non-compliance with Order XXI, Rule 34 of CPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court partly allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Executing Court for compliance with the procedural requirements under Order XXI, Rule 34 of CPC.

Issues: Non-compliance with Order XXI, Rule 34 of CPC and the challenge by the judgment debtors regarding the execution of the sale deed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of complying with the procedural requirements under Order XXI, Rule 34 of CPC and set aside the impugned order due to non-compliance.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Executing Court for compliance with the procedural requirements under Order XXI, Rule 34 of CPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent, waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. This petition can be disposed of on a short count. The petitioners, who are the judgment debtors are challenging the order dated 11.10.2018, passed by the Executing Court, thereby directing execution of the sale deed, in favour of the decree holder.

3. Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC provides for decree for execution or for endorsement of negotiable instrument etc. in terms of provisions of Order XXI, Rule 34 of CPC. The Executing Court upon obtaining the draft of the document from the decree holder, is required to serve the said draft on the judgment debtor, together with a notice, requiring his objections, if any, within such time as the Court fixes in this behalf. In a case where the judgment debtor objects to the draft, the Executing Court has to decide the objection and then pass appropriate orders, approving or altering the draft as it thinks fit.

4. Admittedly, the procedure contemplated under Order XXI, Rule 34 of CPC has not been followed by the Executing Court in this case. The dispute between the parties appears to be pertainining to only approximately 36 square metres of land. Mr. Ramani, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are ready and willing to execute the sale deed, if it is in respect of 216 square metres of undivided property as held by the learned Arbitrator.

5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that there is non compliance of Order XXI, Rule 34 of CPC, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In such circumstances, the following order is passed:

ORDER

(i) The petition is partly allowed.

(ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Executing Court.

(iv) The learned Executing Court shall serve the draft of sale deed on the petitioners, if not already served.

(v) The petitioners will be at liberty to file objections, if any, to the draft, by 15.02.2019.

(vi) The Executing Court shall then proceed to decide the objection in accordance with law, after hearing the parties, as expeditiously as possible.

(vii) Rival contentions of the parties are left open.

(viii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top