High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
DEVINDER GUPTA
BHURI SINGH - Appellant
Versus
RAM LAL - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 231 of 1991
Decided On : 07/29/1992
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 39 RULE 7 - ORDER 39 RULE 8 - ORDER 39 RULE 6 - APPOINTMENT OF LOCAL COMMISSIONER - SALE OF SEIZED PROPERTY - URGENCY - NOTICE TO PARTIES - JURISDICTION - SUMMARY SUIT - INJUNCTION - POSSESSION - OWNERSHIP - TREES - FELLING - DISPUTE - SALE OF SEIZED PROPERTY - WITHOUT NOTICE - WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND - WITHOUT JURISDICTION - INVESTMENT OF SALE PROCEEDS IN FIXED DEPOSIT - DISPOSITION OF SUIT - ULTIMATE DISPOSITION OF AMOUNT - INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants, claiming ownership and possession of the suit land. During the summer vacation, plaintiffs moved an application under Order 39, Rule 7, C.P.C., alleging that defendants felled trees from the suit land. The trial court appointed a local commissioner to visit the spot and report on the number of trees felled and their logs. The court also directed the SHO to seize the trees and logs. Later, the court ordered the Head Constable to auction the seized timber without notice to the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order passed on 12th July 1991, authorizing the Head Constable to dispose of the seized timber, was illegal and without jurisdiction. The court found that the order was passed without notice to the parties, without any application or prayer by a party to the suit, and without satisfying about the urgency of the matter or likelihood of destruction of property.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to order the sale of the seized property without notice to the parties? 2. Whether the order passed by the trial court was illegal and without jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Rule 6 of Order 39, C.P.C., which provides for the power to order interim sale, can only be exercised on the application of a party to the suit. 2. The court further held that an order for sale of the seized property can only be passed after notice to the parties and hearing them. 3. The court also held that the order passed by the trial court was without application of mind and without satisfying about the urgency of the matter or likelihood of destruction of property.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order dated 12th July 1991 and directed the trial court to invest the sale proceeds in a short term fixed deposit for a period of one year in its own name. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the suit as early as possible.
Devinder Gupta, J.—Defendant-petitioner has questioned the two orders passed by Sub-Judge First Class, Amb on 10th July, 1991 and 12th July, 1991 in Civil Suit No 388 of 1986 with a prayer to quash and set aside the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the alternative in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 instituted a suit against defendant-petitioner impleading respondents No. 3 and 4 as defendants No 2 and 3 in the subordinate court at Amb praying for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit land measuring 2-25 24 hectares situate in village Polian Jaswala in District Una. The decree was claimed alleging the suit land to be owned and possessed by them. The defendants contest ed the suit refuting the plaintiffs claim and asserting the suit land to be owned and possessed by them having been allotted in their favour as a result of Consolidation of Holdings proceedings in the village. Issues were framed in the suit and there after the case was posted for plaintiffs evidence.
3. On 9th July 1991, when the subordinate court was closed for summer vacation, an application was moved by the plaintiffs under Order 39, Rule 7, C. P. C. alleging that the defendants-respondents, taking undue advantage and benefit of summer vacation in the court, on 6th July 1991, felled a big Sheesham tree from out of the suit land and thereafter with the help of one Jeewan Singh son of defendant No. 1 got another big size Sheesham tree and Jamun tree felled from the suit land. It was also alleged that process of cutting other remaining trees from out of the suit land by the defendants was still in progress. Though the matter was reported to the police and forest authorities but they refused to take any action in the matter because of the pendency of civil litigation- Accordingly, a prayer was made for appointment of a Commissioner with a view to visit the spot and to make a note of the existing position of the spot and pass further appropriate orders in the matter in order to prevent further felling of the trees. Simultaneously, another application under section 151 C. P. C. was also made for taking up the application on the same day being a matter of urgent nature. The trial Court made an order on the application that the file be put up the next day, that is 10th July 1991, on which date the following order was passed by the trial Court, without any notice to the opposite party (the defendants) ;— "10-7-91 ; Present ; Sh. N. Sharma, Counsel for the applicants. The application put up today with file of the main suit because of urgency, I have gone through the record of the case. The parties have civil suit in the court pertaining to the suit land comprised in Khewat No. !,min, 4 min 15 min & 23/25, Khatauni No 1, min, 3, 8 min. 39 min and 59, and Khasra No. 73/2, 66, 79, 137/2, 142, 75, 7f, 80, 81, 59 and 78 situated in Polian Jaswala, Teh. Amb In the interest of justice Sh. Rajkornar, Adv. Amb is appointed as L C. to go at the spot and report as to how much trees have been cut from the suit land. Be should also report the measurement of the cut trees and their logs if any. His fee is fixed Rs. 200 to be paid by the applicants at the spot. Report be called for 16-74991. In the meantime S. H. O. Amb is directed to immediately seize the trees and logs if any found cut in the suit land till further orders. Compliance report be called for 16-7-91 P. F. is on the file. Orders be issued. Sd/1 10-7-91"
4. Though a direction had been made in the order directing the S. H. O. Amb to immediately seize the felled trees and the logs in the suit land and to submit compliance report on 16th July 1991, it appears that on 12th July 1991, when compliance report was submitted to the Court, not by the S. HO. of Police Station, Amb, but by the Head Constable Karam Singh, the trial Court
AI
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.