Skip to content


Hirambho Nath Banerji Vs. Sarojini Devi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCiivl
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932All655
AppellantHirambho Nath Banerji
RespondentSarojini Devi
Excerpt:
- - it seems to us that the expression 'proceedings under a decree or order' in order 41, rule 5(1) is very wide and would include proceedings taken on the basis of a decree or order it has to he conceded that the proceeding relating to the delivery of possession to an auction purchaser is not a proceeding in execution because the decree has been satisfied and the decree holder has received his money......sale certificate was duly granted and then the auction-purchaser applied to the court below for delivery of possession under order 21, rule 95. in the meantime the judgment debtor has, applied from the order confirming the sale and has impleaded both the auction purchaser and the decree-holder.2. a preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this application on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to grant any stay. it is contended that order 41, rule 5 is not applicable to this case because the application for delivery of possession is not a proceeding under the order confirming the sale but is a separate proceeding : it is also contended that when order 21, rule 95 casts a duty upon the court below to deliver possession and gives it no discretion this court will have.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, C.J.

1. This is an application for stay of execution in first appeal from an order confirming an auction sale. In execution of a simple money decree the house property belonging to the applicant was put for sale and purchased by a third party. An application was filed for setting aside the sale but, it was dismissed and the sale was confirmed. Thereupon the sale certificate was duly granted and then the auction-purchaser applied to the Court below for delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 95. In the meantime the judgment debtor has, applied from the order confirming the sale and has impleaded both the auction purchaser and the decree-holder.

2. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this application on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant any stay. It is contended that Order 41, Rule 5 is not applicable to this case because the application for delivery of possession is not a proceeding under the order confirming the sale but is a separate proceeding : It is also contended that when Order 21, Rule 95 casts a duty upon the Court below to deliver possession and gives it no discretion this Court will have no inherent jurisdiction to order the stay and in any case we should not exercise that jurisdiction. It seems to us that the expression 'proceedings under a decree or order' in Order 41, Rule 5(1) is very wide and would include proceedings taken on the basis of a decree or order It has to he conceded that the proceeding relating to the delivery of possession to an auction purchaser is not a proceeding in execution because the decree has been satisfied and the decree holder has received his money. This was the view expressed by Banerji, J. in Mi, Bhagwati v. Banwari Lal [1909] 31 All. 82, in which Aikman and Griffin, JJ. concurred. The proceeding in reality is one between the judgment-debtor and his representative the auction purchaser: see also Mohsin Raza Khan v. Haidar Bahsh : AIR1928All368 .

3. It does not however follow that the proceeding is not one under the order confirming the sale. Once the sale has been confirmed the Court is bound to grant the sale certificate and Order 21, Rule 94 does not even require a previous formal application to that effect. The effect of the grant of the sale certificate which is a ministerial act is to entitle the auction-purchaser to apply for delivery of possession under Rule 95. Such application therefore is an application on the basis of the order confirming the sale and is consequent upon it. We are therefore inclined to hold that it can be treated as 'a proceeding under the order' confirming the sale. There seems to be no reason to limit the meaning of that expression to proceedings which are expressly directed by the order itself.

4. Assuming that Order 41, Rule 5 does not apply to such a case, we have no doubt that the appellate Court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 151, Civil P.C., to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice. This power includes one for stay of proceedings in a subordinate Court from which an appeal is pending Nilmani Nath Sahai v. Baldeo Das Bista [1919] 4 Pat. L.J. 371 and the case referred to therein. It is quite clear that the order confirming the sale has not yet become final so far as the appellate Court is concerned, and if the order of the Court below is set aside the proceedings relating to the delivery of possession will become in fructuous. We therefore think that we have power to interfere if a tit case is made out.

5. In the present case one of the two houses in suit in a single enclosure has been sold and purchased by a stranger. The other portion of the enclosure is still being occupied by the judgment-debtor. He offers to deposit the lull sale price in the Court below by 15th August at the latest. We think that having regard to the facts mentioned in the affidavit this is a fit case in which there should be a stay of proceedings. We therefore direct that the proceedings relating to the delivery of possession should be stayed on condition that the applicant deposits Rs. 15,850 on or before 15th August 1930. It the amount is not deposited within that time the stay order will automatically stand discharged. The time shall not be extended in any event. If the amount is so deposited the auction purchaser would be at liberty to take the money out and in case of the dismissal of the appeal would have to redeposit it before taking delivery of possession. We make no order as to the costs of the application.


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