Supreme Court of India
L. MOOLCHAND AND ORS. versus FATIMA SULTANA BEGUM AND ORS.
- Decided
- 14 November 1995
- Judges listed
- M.M. PUNCHHI, S.C. SEN
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 229 · 1995 INSC 733
- Also cited as
- (1995) 6 SCC 742
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
In an administrative suit, the parties had agreed for sale of a property at Ootacamund in the State of Tamil Nadu. The receivers appointed by the Court for the purpose sold the said property. The appellants herein are the purchasers thereof. Some of the parties to the suit raised objections to the sale purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 90 read with section 151 CPC. An objection was raised before the Trial Court that such objections were not maintainable. The Trial Court framed a preliminary issue and went into the matter. It rejected the application being not maintainable. The respondents herein took the matter in appeal to the High Court which was placed before a Division Bench for disposal. The High Court agreed with the Trial Court that an objection under Order 21, Rule 90 CPC to such a sale did not lie. But, since the sale had been effected by the Court through its appointed receivers, the High Court viewed that the Court had full control and grip over the matter, empowering it to oversee whether the sale had been properly conducted and if there was any other objection thereto, what was the merit of the objection. This role of the Court was spelled out by the High Court to be within the domain of Section 151 CPC which recognises and preserves the inherent powers of the Civil Court. It is for that purpose that the High Court effected a remand to the Trial Court to go into the matter, J:iolding the application filed by the respondents maintainable. That view is in question before this Court.
p. 230, margin B
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are in total unison with the views expressed by the High Court. In an administrative suit, the receivers· appointed by the Court to perform (a) function are agents of the Court and like a good principal, the Court can put the receivers to accountability. To awaken the role of the Court in that behalf, applications by the parties connected with the suit, are perfectly in order to obviate any doubt entering in that regard and to effect a sense of transparency so that no blame or aspersion is cast on the Court for its having handled the matter in a particular. way. The Court's role is of a balancer.
p. 230, margin F
It has also to be borne in mind that interests of justice are the primary consideration in granting or not granting prayers in a petition under Sec. 151 CPC. No rule or procedure can curtail that power of the Court. The High Court rightly has pursued that path in permitting the Trial Court to examine the objections raised, to promote the cause of justice. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in the said order.
pp. 230–231, margin G
The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 231, margin A