The execution court must recognize claims to property that does not belong to the judgment debtor, even post-auction sale, unless the sale is confirmed.

JUDGMENT :

N. SESHASAYEE, J.

1. These two appeals are preferred challenging an order of the Execution Court allowing the claim of respondents 1 to 5 under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in E.A. No.52 of 2015. Of them, C.M.A. No.460 of 2023 was filed by the purchaser in an auction sale held in E.P. No.168 of 2013, which the appellant/workman in C.M.A.No. 944 of 2023 had laid for executing an award passed under Sec. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1.2 Broadly the issue is that, in the said E.P. Respondents 1 to 5 have taken out an application in E.A.52 of 2015, staking a claim to about 5.43 acres in SyNo:298 of Kuniyamuthur village, and it came to be allowed by the Execution Court. This block of 5.43 acres was part of a larger extent of 37.0 acres, spread over multiple survey numbers, and it was brought to court-auction-sale and was purchased by the appellant in CMA 460 of 2023. The sale in favour of the auction-purchaser is yet to be confirmed by the Execution Court in terms of Order XXI Rule 92 CPC. The decision of the Execution Court in allowing the claim of respondents 1 to 5 over 5.43 acres implies that the Execution Court may not now confirm the auction-sale as pertaining to this block of land.

2. A brief narration of facts that led to the filing of these appeals may now be stated :

(a) The workman here along with about 87 odd workmen was working in M/s Vijayalakshmi Mills. It had a textile unit. It defaulted in paying its dues to them. Subsequently, Vijayalakshmi Mills came to be demerged, whereupon M/s.RSL Industries Ltd., came into existence vide Ext.P18, dated 09.03.1983. There was a further demerger, owing to which M/s.RSL Textiles (India) Ltd., came to be registered vide Ext.P19 dated 03.09.1992. (Both these companies, namely RSL Industries and RSL Textiles would be jointly referred to as the JD.

(b) Claiming the dues which M/s.Vijayalakshmi Mills had defaulted to pay, its workmen, which included the workman in this appeal, laid separate petitions against the JD under Sec. 33C(2) of the ID Act, before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. All these petitions came to be allowed and separate awards came to be passed. The one involved in this case is passed in favour of the workman in C.P.No.443 of 2006 and the sum awarded was Rs.1,75,350/-.

(c) For realising the award sum of Rs.1,75,350/- the workman laid E.P.No.168 of 2013. It is in this petition, on 01.04.2013, the Execution Court (Labour Court) had attached the entire 37 acres of land referred to above. And, the property was eventually sold on 16.09.2019 to the auction-purchaser herein for a total consideration of Rs.9,60,80,000/-.

(d) Be that as it may, about two years after the property was attached, a certain VSP Property Promoters, the first respondent (henceforth VSP Properties) along with its directors (respondents 2 to 5) had laid E.A.52 of 2015 under Order XXI Rule 58, staking exclusive title to properties in Sy.Nos.300, 301, 301(2), 266(3) and 298 and contended that these properties do not belong to the JD in the Execution Petition.

(e) On 12.11.2018, the Execution Court dismissed E.A.52 of 2015.Challenging this Order, VSP Properties preferred W.P.32758 of 2019. On 14.02.2020, this petition was allowed by this Court, and E.A.52 of 2015 was remanded back to the Execution Court. However, and to remind, the court-auction