Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 133 (c) of the Constitution. It has been referred to this Full Bench for decision, because some of the points involved in this case are the same which arise in Civil Miscellaneous No. 5 of 1952 Mst. Gulab Bai vs. Mst. Manphul Bai (1) in which certain questions were referred to a Full Bench.

2. The present application has arisen in the following circumstances :

A decree was passed in August 1927 by the District Judge of Alwar in favour of one Govindi and against the present applicants Phul Chand and Surajmal for about Rs. 7,000/-. It was put into execution, and a compromise was then arrived at by which a certain sum was to be deposited in cash and the rest of the decretal amount was to be paid in annual instalments of Rs. 600/- each. In 1939, another execution application was made, and a house was attached, and was sold on the 13th May, 1940 Thereafter, there were certain objections under Order XXI, R.90 C.P.C., which were dismissed, and the sale was confirmed on the 8th September, 1943, and the sale certificate was issued on the 6th September, 1944. It appears, however, that another objection was taken in August, 1943, and the objection was finally decided by the Rajendra Shashan of the former covenanting State of Alwar in April, 1949. Possession of the house, barring a certain portion in the occupation of the mother of the judgment-debtors, applicants, was also made over to the decree-holders. Thereafter, after the decision of the Rajendra Shasan in April, 1949, an application was filed on the 18th July, 1949, by the applicants contending that the sale was void ab initio, as the mandatory provisions of Order XXI, RR. 84 and 85 C.P.C. had beed disregarded, and the applicants prayed for restoration of possession. This application was dismissed on the 28th September, 1949. There was an appeal by the judgment-debtors, which was allowed and possession was ordered to be restored to them. Then there was a second appeal to this Court, which was heard by a Division Bench. The second appeal was allowed. The present application is for leave to appeal against the decree of this Court.

3. The first point which arises for consideration is whether leave can be granted under Art. 133(1) (c) of the Constitution in a case in which the point in dispute is measurable in terms of money, and the valuation is less than Rs. 20,000/-. This was the first question which was referred to the Full Bench in Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 1952(1). The answer we have given in that case is that even though the point in dispute is measurable in terms of money, and the valuation is less than the minimum amount, it is open to the High Court to grant a certificate under Art. 133(1) (c) if the High Court is of the opinion that the question involved is of general public importance. The objection therefore of the opposite party that the High Court cannot give leave under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution because the point in dispute is measurable in terms of money, and the valuation is less than Rs. 20,000/- has no force.

4. The second question is whether we should grant leave in this particular case and whether the point in dispute is of general public importance. The point in dispute is whether it is open to the judgment-debtor to come to court and ask it to declare that the sale is a nullity after the court has already confirmed the sale. Learned counsel for the opposite party admits that the point is of general public importance, but his contention is that the point is settled by the decision of Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ganpathy Mudaliar vs. Krishnamachariar (1) and therefore the law being settled the case is not a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the applicants concedes that if the law is settled by a decision of the highest court, it would not be proper for this Court to grant a certificate under Art. 133 (1) (c), but his contention i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document