Dismissed

Tukaram Sattoppa Powar v. Shivaji Jotiram Patil and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2010WP/8979/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, auction purchaser, challenged an order allowing respondents to be impleaded after the sale certificate was issued. The single judge held the late application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was not maintainable once the sale was confirmed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Order dated 6th October 2003 is quashed and set aside. The miscellaneous application No. 286 of 2002 stands dismissed. Rule is made absolute.

Tukaram Sattoppa Powar Vs Shivaji Jotiram Patil and… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8979 OF 2003

¶5

Tukaram Sattopa Powar ..Petitioner Age : 58 years, Occu : Agriculturist Residing at 149 B, Jawahar Nagar Kolhapur.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Shivaji Jotiram Patil ..Respondents Age : 56 years, Occu : business Residing at Plot No.158 Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Housing Society, Phulewadi, Kolhapur.

¶8

Mahadeo Joti Patil Age : 50 years, Occu : business

¶9

Bhivaji Joti Patil Age : 45 years, Occu : service (Both residing at City Survey No.307, 5^th Stop, Phulewadi, Kolhapur.)

¶10

Mr.S.V.Sadavarte, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr.Mandar Limaye, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3

¶11

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.

¶12

DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2010

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶16

The Petitioner original auction purchaser has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 6^th October, 2003 passed by the learned Trial Judge. The Sangli Bank Limited had filed a Suit against the 1^st Respondent for recovery of money. The Suit was decreed. In execution of the decree, at the instance of the plaintiff/decree holder, the suit property was put to sale. An application was made by the 2^nd Respondent in the execution application raising an objection to the auction

¶17

sale which was proposed to be held on 12^th April, 2001. It was contended that the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents have 1/3^rd share each in the property which was put to auction sale. The prayer in the application was for setting aside the auction.

¶18

On 9^th April, 2002 the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents filed

¶19

a pursis stating that they were not interested in prosecuting the

¶20

¶21

application at Exhibit 60. Thereafter, the auction was held and the sale in favour of the Petitioner was confirmed. After deposit of the sale price, the executing Court issued sale certificate on 12^th June, 2002. Thereafter, an application was made by the Petitioner by invoking Rule 95 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as “the said Code”) for issuing a warrant of possession of the property purchased by him. On 7^th February, 2003 the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents filed an application purporting to be an application under Subrule 2 of Rule 10 of Order I of the said Code for impleading the said Respondents as parties to the execution application. By the impugned Order, the said application has been allowed.

¶22

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that an application made by the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents for setting aside the auction was not pressed by them. He submitted that the application on which the impugned Order was passed was filed only after the sale certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner and after the Petitioner applied for possession. He submitted that the

¶23

¶24

application was not maintainable.

¶25

The learned Counsel appearing for the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents supported the impugned Order. He submitted that the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents were having 1/3^rd share each of the property sold to the Petitioner in auction and they are in possession of a part of the property. He submitted that the effect of the impugned Order is that the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents will be heard and therefore, there is no prejudice to the Petitioner.

¶26

I have given careful consideration to the

¶27

submissions. Before the auction could be conducted, the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents had filed an application at Exhibit 60 raising various objections to the auction sale including an objection that they had 1/3^rd share in the property. By filing a pursis on 19^th April, 2002 the said application was not pressed.

¶28

The impugned Order has been passed on

¶29

application under Rule 10(2) of Order I of the said Code. On the face of it, the said application was not maintainable.

¶30

¶31

Moreover, the auction sale was already completed and the sale certificate was already issued. The trial Court not only allowed

¶32

the said application but also observed that the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents have vested interest in the suit property and the trial Court directed the said Respondents to adduce the evidence. Perhaps a remedy was available to the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents either under Rule 89 or Rule 90 of Order XXI which was not availed of by the Respondents. After sale certificate was issued, an application made by the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents under Rule 10(2) of Order I of the said Code was not maintainable and the same ought to have been rejected only on that ground. The remedy of the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents was to adopt procedure provided under the said Code.

¶33

Hence, the impugned Order will have to be quashed

¶34

and set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following Order.

¶35

(i) The impugned Order dated 6^th October, 2003 is quashed and set aside.

¶36

(ii) The application made by the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents being Miscellaneous Application No.

¶37

¶38

286 of 2002 stands dismissed.

¶39

(iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs.

¶40

(A.S.OKA, J.)

Tukaram Sattoppa Powar v. Shivaji Jotiram Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tukaram Sattoppa Powar v. Shivaji Jotiram Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Babakka Yallapa Orase Vs Shri Sukhadeo Vyankat Dhotre and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chandrabaga Sitaram Kamble and Ors.

Mrs Indira Shradchandra Salunkhe Vs the President, Shri Swami Vevekanand Shikshan Sanstha

Smt. Ujwala Vijaykumar Marathe Vs Vijaykumar Ramchandra Marathe

Govind Narhari Dangre and Ors. Vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Dangre Since Deceased Pralhad Balkrishna Dangre and Ors.

Ranjana Dyandeo Chopdar Vs Anusuya Anandrao Desai and Ors.