Writ petition filed to challenge rejection of stay application under Order XXI Rule 59(b) CPC. High Court held the application was premature due to lack of advertisement for sale of attached immovable property. Writ dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 10303 OF 2017
Ramabati Routray and others Petitioners Mr. Sidharth Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
…. Ranjan Kumar Routray and another Opp. Parties
Mr. Niranjan Sahoo, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.1)
Mr. Biswaranjan Mohanty, (For Opp. Party No.2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER
Order No.
16.05.2022
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
after the inquiry with regard to the attachment is over. A petition under Order XXI Rule 59(b) of C.P.C. will only be maintainable after an advertisement for sale is made. Since no advertisement for sale of property under attachment is made as yet, the application under Order XXI Rule 59(b) of C.P.C. is premature. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar has committed no error in rejecting such application.
“59 . Stay of sale .—Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may—
(a) if the property is movable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or
(b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or that pending such adjudication, the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed,
and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.”
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
On a close reading of the provisions, it is apparent that an application for sale of stay will be maintainable only after the property attached is advertised for sale. Since no advertisement for sale of the immovable property has yet been made, an application under Order XXI Rule 59(b) of C.P.C. is premature. 7. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in refusing to stay of sale of the immovable property at this stage.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
ms
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition under Order XXI Rule 59(b) CPC is maintainable before the attached property is advertised for sale.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court order rejecting the stay application.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramabati Routray and others
Ranjan Kumar Routray
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
