ORDER :- This revision is directed against an order rejecting the objection under the proviso to Order 21, Rule 58 C. P. C.

2. It appears that the property in dispute was attached on 6th January 1964 and an objection to this attachment was filed on 31st January 1964 by the petitioner Agrawal Pathashala. After the filing of this objection notice was issued and in pursuance of that notice on 4th April 1964 an objection was filed on behalf of the decree-holder.

Thereafter the case was listed on various dates and the same could not be taken because of other work. For some time the case could not be disposed of because of the death of one of the judgment-debtors and pendency of substitution application. More than two years after when the case was taken up on 13th August 1966 the learned Munsif issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the objection be not dismissed under the proviso to Order 21, Rule 58 C. P. C. The proviso is as follows :-

"Provided that no such investigation shall be made where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed."

3. The petitioner filed an application in reply to the show cause notice and submitted that the petitioner was an institution and that it did not know about the attachment, it was stated that as soon as the attachment was known to the petitioner it called a meeting of the members of the institution and thereafter having passed the resolution filed the present objection within five days of the passing of the resolution. The application of the petitioner was objected to by the decree-holder. Thereafter the Munsif without recording any evidence and without applying his mind as to what was meant by the expression "designedly and unnecessarily delayed" he rejected the objection under the proviso to Order 21, Rule 58 C. P. C. without going in the merits of the claim.

4. Against this order the present revision has been filed. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Munsif was not justified in summarily rejecting the objection on the ground of its being designedly and unnecessarily delayed. It was submitted that this could have been done at the preliminary stage. When the objection was filed, the Munsif without issuing notice to the decree-holder could have called upon the petitioner to show cause why the claim be not rejected under the proviso. It was submitted that once the Munsif started investigation the power under the proviso could not be exercised. Reliance was placed on the cases of Surendra Nath v. Rajni Kanta Das, AIR 1917 Cal 9 (2) and Parasmal v. R. S. Rekhchand Gopaldas Mohta, 1959 MP LJ (Notes) 67 wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court held "that the power of summarily rejecting an objection under the proviso to Order 21, Rule 58, C. P. C. on the ground of delay has to be exercised before commencing the investigation. That power cannot be exercised if the Court has started investigation of the case on merits. If this power is not exercised before commencing the investigation, the Court has to decide the case on merits. It has no inherent power to reject a claim or objection on the ground of delay."

5. My attention was also drawn to the amendment by this Court. This Court directed the addition of the following words at the end of sub-rule (2) :-

"or may in its discretion make an order postponing the delivery of the property after the sale pending such investigation. And in no case shall the sale become absolute until the claim or objection has been decided."

It was contended that by the addition of this sub-rule this Court considered that the objection could be filed even after the sale had taken place. Learned counsel submitted that when there was no period of limitation prescribed for the filing of an objection and sale in pursuance of the attachment could not be held within a period of one month thereof, a period of one month should be taken to be a reasonable tune within which an objection under Order 21, Rule 58 C. P. C. c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document