The court emphasized the importance of complying with the directions of the High Court regarding seeking permission for transfer of property and highlighted the limitations of challenging subsequent refusals of permission in a Civil Revision.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Misra, J. - The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present Civil Revision are follows:

The Petitioner had filed Original Suit No. 76 of 1980 against opposite party No. 1 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, for specific performance of contract in respect of the disputed property on the basis of an agreement dated 17-2-1997, whereunder the opposite party No. 1 had agreed to sell the property for Rs. 1,30,000/-. Initially, the suit was decreed ex parte in favour of the Petitioner, but the ex parte decree was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal by the High Court. Thereafter, the trial court instead of passing a decree for specific performance of contract, passed a decree for payment of damages to the Petitioner, who filed First Appeal No. 348 of 1984. Ultimately, the said First Appeal was allowed with the following observations:

9. On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs the appeal is allowed with cost, the judgment of the trial court rejecting the prayer for specific performance of contract of sale is set aside and the Plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract of sale is decreed. The Defendant will submit application to the appropriate functionary of the State Government seeking permission for sale of the suit property to the Plaintiff within two months and on obtaining such permission shall execute the sale deed within a month of receipt of permission.

The decretal dues of the Life Insurance Corporation against the Defendant shall be paid out of the sum of Rs. 1,34,502.32 which is stated to have been deposited by the Plaintiff in the trial court. If any further sum is required for clearing the decretal dues, the Plaintiff will deposit the same. If the Defendant fails to apply or to execute the sale deed, the learned Subordinate Judge will take necessary steps in the matter. If the State Government refuses to accord permission for the sale, the Plaintiff will be entitled to receive damages of Rs. 22,000/- as stipulated in the agreement with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit.

Thereafter, Execution Case No. 44 of 1996 was initiated by the present Petitioner and as the said execution case remained in suspended animation, so to say, the Petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 10614 of 1998 seeking for a writ of mandamus to the Executing Court to expedite the execution case. Therein, this Court passed an order on 31-8-1998 directing the Executing Court to dispose of the execution proceeding within four months from the date of receipt of the older. Subsequently, on 18-11-1998, the Executing Court took up the matter. While rejecting the application of the present Intervenor for intervention in the execution case, the Executing Court passed an order to the following effect:

4. However, as this Court has been directed by the Hon'ble Court in O.J.C. No. 10614/98 to proceed in the execution proceeding ex parte as against the J. Dr. and the Hon'ble Court has observed in First Appeals No. 348 of 1984 that in case the J. Dr. fails to apply or execute the sale deed this Court is to take necessary steps, this Court has no option than to intimate the State Government through their Special Secretary, G.A. Deptt. by sending the copy of this order either to give permission for sale of the suit property to the D. Hr. or to refuse the same by 21-12-98, as it has been mentioned in the order of the Hon'ble Court in F.A. No. 348 of 1984 that if the State Government gives permission for sale of the suit property to the D. Hr. this Court will execute the sale deed in favour of the D. Hr. and in case the State Government refuses to accord permission for the sale of the suit property to the D. Hr. the D. Hr. will be entitled to receive damages of Rs. 22.000/- as stipulated in the agreement with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit from the J. Dr. As the Hon'ble Court has directed this Court to d