JUDGMENT

ARUN KUMAR, J. — The grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is that she has been deprived of her valuable immovable property located at Premises No.662/B, Tollygunge Circular Road, Block ‘O’, New Alipore, Calcutta-700053 without even being afforded an opportunity of being heard. The appellant had pur¬chased the said property vide a registered conveyance deed dated 28.11.1969 executed in her favour by one Pritam Singh. According to the appellant after its purchase she got building plans ap¬proved from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for construction of three storeyed building. The appellant Sangeeta Chowdhury en¬tered into an agreement to sell the said property with one Raja Mallo on 29.7.1980. There is no dispute between the parties about an agreement to sell having been executed by Sangeeta Chowdhury entered into an agreement to sell the said property with one Raja Mallo on 29.7.1980. There is no dispute between the parties about an agreement to sell having been executed by Sangeeta Chowdhury in favour of Raja Mallo. The dispute, however, is that according to the appellant, the agreement was for a consideration of Rupees five lacs out of which Rupees one lac was received by her from Raja Mallo by way of earnest money while according to the re¬spondents, the agreement was for a sum of Rs. one lac and the entire consideration was paid by Raja Mallo to Sangeeta Chowd¬hury. Neither party has produced the original agreement on re¬cord. According to Sangeeta Chowdhury after paying Rs. one lac as earnest money in pursuance of the said agreement Raja Mallo disappeared and did not perform the rest of the agreement. She forfeited the earnest money and she continues to be the owner of the property. According to the respondent Raja Mallo paid the entire consideration of Rs. one lac in pursuance of the agreement to Sangeeta Chowdhury and he further entered into a construction agreement with one Biswajeet Ghosh on 27.2.1987.

2. There was a firm Sanchaita Investments which had ac¬cepted large number of deposits from small depositors and had purportedly defrauded them. Investigation into the affairs of the said firm had been going on since long and by virtue of orders passed by this Court a Court Commissioner had been ap¬pointed. On 27.9.1983, this Court had passed an order authorising the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investments to attach such assets and properties which prima facie in his opinion were owned by the firm Sanchaita Investments or any of its partners. The Commis¬sioner was further authorised to put to sale such assets and properties if no objections were received to attachment thereof within one month of the date of attachment. The Commissioner Sanchaita Investments attached the property of the appellant on 3rd January, 1989 and invited objections to the attachment. Two sets of objections were filed-(1) by Biswajeet Ghosh (filed in February, 1989 and (2) by Tarun Kanti Chowdhury on behalf of Sangeeta Chowdhury (filed in January, 1991).

These objections were referred by the Commissioner to the High Court for purposes of consideration and disposal. The High Court vide its order dated 24.4.1991 disposed of the two sets of objections. The objections filed on behalf of present appellant Sangeeta Chowdhury were rejected on the ground that the Vakalat¬nama filed in support of the objections was found to be defec¬tive, however, liberty was given to the counsel to file a proper Vakalatnama within ten days. Strangely the order records in this behalf that “in the event such Vakalatnama is filed the objec¬tions will be governed by the order which we could hereinafter pass. In default the objection of Tarun Kanti Chowdhury will be deemed to have been dismissed for absence of proper authority of his learned Advocate-on-Record. The order passed by the Court thereafter was that Biswajeet Ghosh, the other objector offered to deposit a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Thou¬sand only) with the Commissioner, Sanchai