Skip to content


Baldeo Singh Vs. Kishan Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR9All411
AppellantBaldeo Singh
RespondentKishan Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
.....board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised..........and sold on the 20th september 1885, and purchased by the decree-holders. the mother of baldeo singh filed objections to the sale under section 311 of the civil procedure code, but the application was rejected on the ground that she did not legally represent the minor. the order was made on 11th january 1886. on the following day, the 12th january, objections were filed by balwant singh on the minor's behalf, and on the 2nd august following, the subordinate judge rejected the application, on the ground that he had, on the 11th january, confirmed the sale, and was precluded from entertaining objections under section 311 after such confirmation, prior to which no proper application of objection had been filed. it is from this order that the present appeal is lodged.2. it was objected.....
Judgment:

Oldfield and Brodhurst, JJ.

1. This appeal is instituted by Baldeo-Singh, a minor, through his guardian Balwant Singh, against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, refusing to set aside a sale of immoveable property. The appellant, was a judgment-debtor represented by Balwant Singh, his guardian, who was also himself a judgment-debtor under the decree. Execution was taken of the decree by the respondents-decree-holders, and the property put up to sale, and sold on the 20th September 1885, and purchased by the decree-holders. The mother of Baldeo Singh filed objections to the sale under Section 311 of the Civil Procedure Code, but the application was rejected on the ground that she did not legally represent the minor. The order was made on 11th January 1886. On the following day, the 12th January, objections were filed by Balwant Singh on the minor's behalf, and on the 2nd August following, the Subordinate Judge rejected the application, on the ground that he had, on the 11th January, confirmed the sale, and was precluded from entertaining objections under Section 311 after such confirmation, prior to which no proper application of objection had been filed. It is from this order that the present appeal is lodged.

2. It was objected that no appeal will lie to this Court, but we overrule this objection, as the appeal must be considered to be one from an order under the first paragraph of Section 312 confirming the sale after disallowing the appellant's objection to the sale. The material point is whether the order is one we should interfere with. Now, assuming that the first application made on the minor's behalf by his mother was improperly made, as she did not legally represent him, and that the Subordinate Judge was right in refusing to entertain it, the second application of objection to the sale was made by a duly authorized guardian, Balwant Singh; and with regard to Section 7 of the Limitation Act it must be held not to be barred by limitation--on this point there is the authority of the Privy Council in Phoolbas Koonwar v. Lalla Jogeshur Sahoy I. L. R., 1 Cal., 226. It was therefore an application which the judgments debtor-appellant had a right to make, and which it was the duty of the Subordinate Judge to have entertained and dealt with before he proceeded to confirm the sale or grant a sale-certificate. No doubt Section 312 contemplates that objections to a sale under Section 311 shall be filed before an order for confirmation is passed, but if the precipitate action of the Court has led to the confirmation of a sale before the time allowed for filing objections to the sale has expired, whether or not the Court below could entertain such objections after it had confirmed the sale, we are of opinion that this Court, when the case has come before it in appeal, is bound to interfere, and to see that objections which by the law the appellant is empowered to make, are heard and determined before a sale of his property shall be confirmed or become absolute.

3. We set aside the order of the Court below of the 2nd August and the order confirming the sale, and remand the case in order that the objections of the appellant he heard and determined, and the case disposed of according to law.

4. Costs to be costs in the cause.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //