A. M. SINHA, J, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore in Money Execution Case No. 19 of 1970 rejecting the application filed by revisionist-petitioners purported to be one for obtaining an information as to dues of the decree-holder on the money decree for the purpose of paying it off and for certain other directions. In a money suit the decree-holder obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 6100. 00 against the revisionist-petitioner and his co-sharers. The co-sharers, it was said, agreed to pay off all their dues in the money execution case and as such they wanted to be favoured with the information of the court as to the exact amount payable by them. They stated that they were ready to pay the said dues by Challan on the next day of the supply of such information.

( 2 ) THEIR immovable property, namely, 11 cottahs of land with a two storied puce building situated at 46 and 48, R. K. Chatterjee Road, Kasba, Calcutta were attached and put to auction sale for rupees one and half lakh only on 7/07/1990. According to the petitioner, the market value of such property at the time of sale would be more than Rs. 8 lakhs.

( 3 ) AS the particulars could not be obtained through their lawyers as to such auction sale, they could not file a regular application under Order 21, Rule 89 for depositing the requisite amount in the execution case and get the sale set aside. The petitioners were very much upset and anxious on coming to know of the auction sale and filed the abovementioned petition for ascertaining their dues for the purpose of filing an application under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 4 ) THE learned Assistant District Judge instead of disposing of the said application for information which was filed on 10/07/1990 put it off to a future date, i. e. on 8/08/1990 for hearing. He ultimately found that the application was mala fide as the petitioners who were in the know of their dues could have deposited the same under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code. According to the petitioners, the impugned order affected their right, title interest and possession in the disputed property which was auction-sold for a sum of Rs. 11/2 lakh only, at a shockingly low price and deprived them of their opportunities of proceeding under Order 21, Rule 89 or 90 of the Civil Procedure Code within the period of limitation and within time which was allowed to be lapsed by the court by the impugned order which was passed on 8/08/1990. So, the petitioners have come up in revision for quashing such order and stay of further proceeding in the money execution case and also for other appropriate order to be passed by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 5 ) THE decree-holder-opposite party in her affidavit-in-opposition has made a total denial of the case of the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment and order. It is alleged by her that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The auction purchaser has been added as a party as his application has been allowed by this Bench. He in his affidavit-in-opposition supported the case of the decree-holder and reiterated that the application is not maintainable in fact and in law and that he purchased the property bona fide in auction sale on payment of appropriate price.

( 6 ) THE only question that falls for determination in this case is if the impugned order can be sustained in law and in fact.

( 7 ) MR. Ashoke Sengupta, learned Advocate representing the revisionist-petitioner has urged that the revision is maintainable inasmuch as the impugned order was passed on rejection of an application, which may be termed as one under S. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been further urged that it is not correct that the application was one under Rules 89, 90 and 91 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the revisionist-petitioner should not be allowed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document