SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(P&H) 729

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.M.Tandon, J.
Bakhsho
Versus
Pakhar Singh
Civil Revision No. 1233 of 1984,
Civil MISCELLANEOUS No. 2239 of 1984,
Decided On : DECEMBER 17, 1984

An appeal does not lie against an order confirming a sale in execution of a decree when no objection under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 21 RULE 90, 92 - ORDER 43 RULE 1(J) - SALE IN EXECUTION OF DECREE - CONFIRMATION OF SALE - APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY - OBJECTION UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 90 NOT FILED - SALE CONFIRMED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 92 - NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST SUCH ORDER.

Fact of the Case:

Pakhar Singh obtained a decree against Bakhsho petitioner. In execution of the decree, Bakhsho's land was auctioned and Balbir Singh respondent gave the highest bid. No objections were filed against the auction and the executing Court confirmed the sale in favor of Balbir Singh. Pakhar Singh filed an appeal against the order confirming the sale, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Pakhar Singh then filed a revision petition against the order of the Additional District Judge and the executing Court.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appeal against the order confirming the sale was not maintainable since no objection under Order 21 Rule 90 was filed before the sale was confirmed. The court also held that the revision petition was misconceived as the petitioner could have sought relief from the executing Court to set aside the sale.

Issues: Whether an appeal lies against an order confirming a sale in execution of a decree when no objection under Order 21 Rule 90 was filed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets or whose interests are affected by the sale may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. If no such application is made, or if such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute under Order 21 Rule 92. An appeal lies from an order setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale under Order 43 Rule 1(j) of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in the present case, no objection under Order 21 Rule 90 was filed and the sale was confirmed under Order 21 Rule 92. Therefore, no appeal lies against the order confirming the sale.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.

Judgment

1. Pakhar Singh obtained a decree for Rs. 16,374/- with the future interest against Bakhsho petitioner. In execution of the decree, the land of the petitioner was auctioned. Balbir Singh respondent gave the highest bid for Rs. 42,000.00 . No objections were filed against the auction. The executing Court, vide order dated 22-12-1983, confirmed the sale of the land in favour of Balbir Singh, respondent. A cheque of Rs. 18,600.00 was ordered to be issued in favour of the decree-holder. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of the executing Court dated 22-12-1983, confirming the sale of the land in favour of the auction purchaser which was disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated 12-4-1984. The Additional District Judge held that the appeal against the order of the executing Court, confirming the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser was not maintainable. The appeal was consequently dismissed. The petitioner has filed the present composite revision against the order of the Additional District Judge dated 12-4-1984 and the executing Court dated 22-12-1983. The petitioner has moved Civil Miscellaneous No. 2239-C-II of 1984 Under Ss.5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the Civil Revision against the order of the executing Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly held that the appeal against the order of the executing Court, confirming the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser is not maintainable and in support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the provisions contained in O.43, R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Cl.(j) of O.43, R.1 reads :-

"APPEALS FROM ORDERS

1. Appeals from orders :-

An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Sec.104, namely : - (j) an order under R.72 or R.92 of Order XXI setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale; The relevant part of O.21 Rr.90 and 92 read : "Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud : - (1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-holder, or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it.

92. Sale when to become absolute or be set aside : - (1) Where no application is made under R.89, R.90 or R.91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

It is not disputed that in the instant case, the petitioner did not file objection under O.21, R.90 before the Sale was confirmed in favour of the auction-purchaser. In the absence of objection under R.90, it was obligatory for the executing Court to confirm the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser. The executing Court consequently confirmed the sale under R.92 in favour of Balbir Singh respondent.

4. The petitioner having,not filed objection under R.90, the question of setting aside or refusing to set aside the sale in favour of Balbir Singh auction-purchaser did not arise. In other words, the executing Court would have either set aside the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser or refused to set it aside, if the petitioner had filed objection under R.90. The order of the executing Court setting aside the sale or refusing to set aside the sale is appealable under clause (j) of O.43, R.1. The order of the executing Court per se confirming the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser in terms of O.21, R.92 in the absence of objection under R.90 cannot be treated an order refusing to set aside the sale. It is not disputed that the order of the executing Court confirming the sale in favour of Balbir Singh auction-purchaser would not be appealable if it is



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top