Order of Reference to a Full Bench †:- In this Civil Revision Petition learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is challenging the correctness of the decision in The Official Receiver of Ramnad v. Veerappa Chettiar1. We are of opinion that there is some force in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel. We consider it necessary that under the circumstances this matter should be examined by a Full Bench.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference the petition ca me on for hearing before a Full Bench (S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J., Veeraswami and Ramakrishnan, JJ.). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.*-

This Reference involves the determination of the question

“Whether an Interim Receiver appointed under section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is entitled to apply to set aside a Court sale of the property of a debtor under Order 21 rule go, Civil Procedure Code.”

The third respondent in this Civil Revision Petition obtained in O.S. No. 53 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, a decree against the fourth respondent for the payment of a sum of money. In execution of the decree he attached and brought to sale certain immoveable properties of the debtor. In the sale that was held on 4th November, 1960, the first respondent who was the highest bidder became the purchaser. Subsequent to the sale and before it was confirmed, i.e., on 23rd November, 1960, another creditor of the fourth respondent applied to the Sub-Court of Tirunelveli in LP. No. 18 of 1960 to adjudge the latter an insolvent. The petition was duly admitted and on 23rd November, 1960, the Official Receiver of Tirunelveli was appointed as Interim Receiver pending disposal of the Insolvency Petition. The order appointing the Interim Receiver stated inter alia.

" He is directed to take charge of the properties of the respondent-debtor pending disposal of the Insolvency Petition."

The Official Receiver entered into possession of the properties. Alleging that the execution sale in favour of the first respondent was vitiated by a material irregularity which resulted in the property being sold for less than its proper value, he applied to the executing Court under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale. Though it is not very material for the decision of this Reference it may for the sake of completion of the narrative be stated that the debtor was adjudged insolvent on 13th December, 1960.

The maintainability of the petition to set aside the sale, filed by the Official Receiver was challenged by the auction purchaser. He contended that an Interim Receiver appointed under section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act has no interest in the property sold and would therefore have no locus standi to sustain the petition. The learned Subordinate Judge who disposed of the petition in a perfunctory manner did not consider that objection. He assumed, an assumption which was wholly unjustified, that the parties before him were only interested in the decree-holder recovering the monies and if that could be secured, there was no objection to set aside the sale. He accordingly passed a conditional order setting aside the sale, directing that if the Interim Receiver were to deposit the decree amount with commission and poundage within a month from the date of the order, the sale would stand set aside, failing compliance, the petition to stand dismissed. The auction purchaser whose existence and rights were completely ignored by the executing Court filed an appeal to the District Court. The learned District Judge found that there was no justification for disposing of the application on any consent of the parties. He accepted the contentions of the auction purchaser that the Interim Receiver had no locus standi to file the application for setting aside the sale and dismissed that application in limine.

A creditor of the insolvent has filed this Civil Revision Petition against that order. No objection has been taken on behalf of the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document