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

1974 Supreme(Raj) 26

Rajasthan High Court
Tyagi & Jain, JJ.
Maliram Nemichand Jain, Jaipur - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Financial Corpn., Jaipur - Respondents
D.B. Civil Misc. First Appeal No. 142/72
Decided On : February 15, 1974

Advocates Appeared:
M.B.L. Bhargava with S.N. Bhargava & A.K. Bhandari, for Appellant in Appeal No. 142 of 1973; B.P. Agarwal, for Appellant in Appeal No. 1 of 1973; H.P. Gupta, for Respondent No. 1 in both appeals; R. K. Rastogi with H.C. Rastogi, for Respondent No. 2 in bo

Headnote:(a) Civil P. C, Sec. 24—Word competent to be given a wider meaning-Transfer to court which does not have territorial jurisdiction is not by itself illegal.(b) Civil P. C, O. 21, R.R. 65 and 66—Executing court appointing Nazir of another court to conduct sale—Such person competent to conduct sale.(c) Civil P. C, O. 21, R. 69(2)—Total number of days on which sale adjourned on two different dates not exceeding seven days—Auction not illegal.

       

TYAGI, J.—These two appeals are filed separately by the two partners of the judgment-debtor firm Messrs Maliram Nemichand Jain against the order of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 5th of September, 1972, dismissing the objection petition filed by the judgment-debtor and passing the order of the confirmation of sale of the property belonging to the judgment debtor.

2. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur had obtained a decree against Messrs Maliram Nemichand Jain and its partners Damodarlal and Gappulal and in the execution of that decree the building known as Hind Hotel situate in the centre of Jaipur City was sold. In the beginning, the execution proceedings were initiated in the court of the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, but later on the execution case was transferred by the High Court to the court of the District Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, as the Presiding Officer of the court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur felt that on account of his relationship with the judgment-debtors he will not be able to take any proceedings in the matter.

3. The property of the judgment-debtor was first of all auctioned on 5-3-1970 for Rs. 16 lacs, but this sale was set aside and the District Judge, Jaipur District ordered the property to be sold in two lots as requested by the judgment debtors. In pursuance of the order of the District Judge dated 6th of June, 1970, the property was sold in two lots, one lot constituted of six show rooms and one shop whereas in the other lot the hotel portion of the building and one show room were sold. These two lots were put to sale. The first lot constituting of show rooms and one shop fetched the highest bid of Rs. 5,21,151 where as the highest bidder for the hotel and one show room was for Rs. 7 lacs. A compromise between the parties thereafter was effect on 10th of April, 1971, wherein the sale of the first lot consisting of the show rooms and one shop was confirmed and the hotel portion of the building with one show room was again to be sold. In pursuance of this compromise, a fresh proclamation was issued for the auction of the hotel and it was mentioned therein that the sale shall take place from 22nd of July, 1971. The sale was accordingly conducted by Bhanwarlal, Nazir attached to the court of District Judge, Jaipur City. The sale continued at the site from 22nd of July, 1971 to 1st of August, 1971. From 2nd of August the venue of of sale was changed from the site to the court premises On 3rd of August, 1971 the sale was adjourned to 9th of August when the auction proceedings again started, but, it was again postponed to 12th of August when the highest bid was of Rs. 8,22,000. Throughout the auction proceedings there were only two bidders, namely, Gopikishan and Vijay Kumar Patni. On 13th of August, 1971 the hammer fell and the highest bid of the auction-purchaser was accepted by the court.

4. Objections were filed by Gappulal and Damodarlal separately on 10th of September, 1971 and 11th of September, 1971 which were dismissed by the learned District Judge without affording any opportunity to the judgment debtors to adduce evidence in support of their objection An appeal was filed against the order of the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 23rd of November, 1971 and this Court vide its judgment dated 31st of March, 1972 remanded the case to the file of the District Judge with a direction that the application under Order 21, rule 90 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the partners of the judgment-debtor firm may be decided after giving the parties an opportunity to adduce their evidence on the points raised by them.

5. The judgment-debtors examined as many as 8 witnesses to support their objections. The auction-purchaser also examined Gopikishan as A. P.W. 1 and the decree-holder brought two witnesses Vijaichand Jain (D.H.P.W. 1) and Om Prakash Bhargava (D.H.P.W. 2). The learned District Judge, after hearing the arguments of the parties at length, passe























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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top