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

2007 Supreme(UK) 207

2007 UAD 637
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Justice Mr. S.B. Sinha and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan
Civil Appeal No. 2078 of 2007 With
Civil appeal No. 2079 of 2007
MOHIT BHARGAVA – Appellant
Versus
BHARAT BHUSHAN BHARGAVA & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 20.04.2007

For the Appellant :Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Mr. Sarad Singhania, Mr. Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Mr. Sanjay Dwivedi and Mr. Ashok Mathur, Advocates.
For Respdts 10 & 11 : in-person.

Headnote:(A) C.P.C., 1908, Order XXI, Rule-3, 54 and Secs. 46, 136 — Attachment of property outside jurisdiction — Order of — Jurisdiction of Court to — Pending a suit, court approached with suit, may have jurisdiction to order attachment of property even outside its jurisdiction — Sec. 136 provides for order of such attachment and sending such order to district court within whose local limits property, sought to be attached, is situate as provided for therein — But sec. 136 clearly excludes execution of decrees from within its purview — Execution against immovable property lying outside jurisdiction of executing court is possible in terms of Order XXI, Rule 3 — In case where Order XXI, Rule 3 has no application decree holder has to get decree transferred to appropriate court for execution — In execution under Order XII, Rule 54 court has jurisdiction to order of attachment of property prohibiting judgment debtor from transferring or charging property in any way — Court in such a case could issue percept in terms of sec. 46 and court to which percept is sent, thereupon has to actually attach property in manner prescribed. (Para 7)

       (B) C.P.C., 1908, Sec. 39(4) and Order XXI, Rule 3, 50 — Requirement of Section 39(4) — Proceeding against a property situated outside jurisdiction of executing court — Executing court must refrain from unless it is a case covered under Order 21, Rule 3 — Property sought to be sold in execution of decree for dissolution of partnership not being a property of partnership nor a partnership asset held by court which passed decree concerned or within jurisdiction of such court — Rule 50 of Order 21 — Not applicable — Executing court has no jurisdiction to order sale of immovable property lying beyond/outside its jurisdiction.

        (Paras 7, 8)

       ¼v½ nhokuh izfd;k lafgrk] 1908] vkns'k&21] fu;e&3] 54 rFkk /kkjk&46] 136 & {ks=kfèkdkj ls ckgj dh lEifRr dh dqdhZ ds vkns'k djus dk U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj & okn ds yfEcr jgrs] ftl U;k;ky; esa okn yk;k x;k gS] dks vius {ks=kf/kdkj ds ckgj dh Hkh lEifRr dh dqdhZ vknsf'kr djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj gksxk & /kkjk&136 ,slh dqdhZ ds vkns'k rFkk ,slk vkns'k ftyk U;k;ky; ftldh {ks=h; lhek ds vUrxZr dqdZ djkuh pkgh x;h lEifRr fLFkr gS] dks Hkstus] tSlk fd mlds vUrZxr izko/kkfur gS] dk izko/kku djrh gS & fdUrq /kkjk&136 vius dk;Z{ks= ls fMdh;ksa ds fu"iknu dks Li"V :i ls vioftZr djrh gS & fu"iknu U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj fLFkr LFkk;h lEifRr ds fo#) fu"iknu vkns'k&21] fu;e&3 ds fucU/kuksa ds vuqlkj laHko gS & ftu ekeyksa esa vkns'k&21] fu;e&3 ykxw ugha gksrh ogk¡ fMdh /kkjd dks fu"iknu ds fy;s fMdh fofu;ksftr U;k;ky; esa gLrkUrfjr djkuh gksxh & vkns'k&21] fu;e&54 ds vUrxZr fu"iknu esa U;k;ky; dks fu.khZr _.kh dks lEifRr fdlh Hkh izdkj ls gLrkUrfjr ;k Hkkfjr djus ls izfrcfU/kr djrs gq, lEifRr dh dqdhZ ds vkns'k dk {ks=kf/kdkj gS & U;k;ky; ,sls ekeys esa /kkjk&46 ds fucU/kuksa ds vuqlkj cks/k tkjh dj ldrh gS rFkk U;k;ky; ftldks cks/k Hkstk x;k gS] dks blds mijkUr fu/kkZfjr rjhds ls okLro esa lEifRr dks dqdZ djuk gksxkA ¼izLrj 7½

       ¼c½ nhokuh izfd;k lafgrk] 1908] /kkjk&39¼4½ rFkk vkns'k&21] fu;e&3] 50 & èkkjk&39¼4½ dh vko';drk;sa & fu"iknu U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ds ckgj fLFkr lEifRr ds fo#) dk;Zokgh & fu"iknu U;k;ky; dks fojr jguk pkfg,] tc rd fd vkns'k&21] fu;e&3 ds vUrxZr vkus okyk ekeyk u gks & lk>snkjh ds fo?kVu ds fy, fMdh ds fu"iknu esa cspuh pkgh x;h lEifRr tks fd lk>snkjh dh lEifRr ugha gS u gh U;k;ky; ftlus lEcfU/kr fMdh ikfjr dh }kjk ;k ,sls U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ds vUrxZr /kkfjr lk>snkjh lEifRr gS & vkns'k&21] fu;e&50 ykxw ugha & fu"iknu U;k;ky; dks vius {ks=kf/kdkj ds ckgj fLFkr LFkk;h lEifRr cspus ds vkns'k dk dksbZ {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA ¼izLrj 7] 8½

JUDGMENT

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. — Leave granted.

1. While the judgment debtor challenges the order the High Court in a petition filed by him under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the extent in rejects his prayers, the decree holder has also challenged the same order to the extent it upheld an objection of the judgment debtor. The decree holder and the grand father of the judgment debtor among others, were partners in a firm. A notice of dissolution was issued by some of the partners to the grand father of the judgment debtor. Ultimately, the decree holder filed a suit in the District Court of Gwalior for dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of accounts. On 27.4.1981 the court passed a preliminary decree declaring that the partnership form stood dissolved with effect from 20.6.1978 and directing that accounts be taken to settle mutual rights and liabilities. A receiver who had been appointed pending the suit was directed to continue.

2. The father of the judgment debtor pre-deceased the grand father of the judgment debtor. It is said that on 26.3.1985, the grand father executed a will bequeathing the properties to his grand son, the judgment debtor. At the relevant time, the judgment debtor, the legatee, was a minor. Provisions were made regarding the management of the properties during the minority of the judgment debtor. On 19.11.1985, the grand father of the judgment debtor died. The final decree proceedings continued and the Commissioner submitted his report after scrutinising the accounts on 27.8.2002. On 29.11.2002, the District Court Gwalior, passed a final decree in the suit for dissolution. Under the final Decree, the judgment debtor was liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 6,66,292.50 and a total sum of Rs. 10,83,757/- to other partners and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as his share of fees to the Commissioner. According to the judgment debtor, he has filed an appeal against this final decree, but due to objections raised by the Registry of the High Court regarding the court fee payable, further orders are awaited in the appeal on that question.

3. On 2.1.2003, the decree holder, the plaintiff in the suit, filed an exection petition in the District Court of Gwalior for execution of the decree. In other words, the execution petition was filed in the court which passed the decree. Meanwhile, it is said that the will executed by the grand father designating the judgment debtor as the legatee was probated. On 19.3.2003, the decree holder moved the executing court for an injunction restraining the person holding the building said to have been bequeathed to the judgment debtor by his grand father, from handling over possession of the same to the judgment debtor and from handing over the documents of title to him. He also sought a direction restraining the bank holding an account of the estate from permitting the judgment debtor to operate the accounts. The executing court passed an order on 19.3.2003 directing the occupant of the building as well as the bank not to transfer to the judgment-debtor the properties enumerated in the list submitted by the decree holder. The person holding the building moved the executing court praying that he be relieved from the responsibility of managing the property. He also produced certain documents in the executing court with a prayer that he be relieved of his obligations. On 7.7.2003, the executing court, after taking notice of the documents produced by the occupant of the building concerned, directed that the documents be kept in safe custody of the court. On 26.7.2003, an application was moved by the decree holder submitting that he had received an offer for the purchase of the building in question, which was situate at 14, Bakshi Colony, Indore, and praying that the said property may be sold by way of auction and the amount received be apportioned among the decree holder and other partners. Though the judgment debtor had not then and there challenged the orders














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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