Skip to content


Ram Sakhi Debya Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. Radha Nath De and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Cal827
AppellantRam Sakhi Debya Chowdhurani and ors.
RespondentRadha Nath De and ors.
Cases ReferredFazil Meah v. Prosanna Kumar Roy A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....of certain properties which had been previously sold in execution of two decrees for rent. the decree-holder himself purchased the properties for rs. 71 and rs. 89 at the sale. the bids were accepted by the nazir, the decree-holder having filed a petition to set off his decretal dues against a part of the purchase money. the nazir submitted the usual report to the court and the court thereupon, on the 25th february 1925, on receipt of the nazir's report ordered the cases to be put up on the 23rd march 1925 for confirmation of the sales.2. on the 25th february 1925 petitions were filed by one radha nath dey in the said two cases in which he stated that he had filed vakalatnamas in those cases and had given instruction for bidding at the sales but that the officers of the decree-holder.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. These two Rules are directed against an order passed by the earned Munsif of Jamalpur on the 25th February 1925, by which he directed a resale of certain properties which had been previously sold in execution of two decrees for rent. The decree-holder himself purchased the properties for Rs. 71 and Rs. 89 at the sale. The bids were accepted by the Nazir, the decree-holder having filed a petition to set off his decretal dues against a part of the purchase money. The Nazir submitted the usual report to the Court and the Court thereupon, on the 25th February 1925, on receipt of the Nazir's report ordered the cases to be put up on the 23rd March 1925 for confirmation of the sales.

2. On the 25th February 1925 petitions were filed by one Radha Nath Dey in the said two cases in which he stated that he had filed vakalatnamas in those cases and had given instruction for bidding at the sales but that the officers of the decree-holder acting collusively with some other persons had caused the properties to be sold secretly and had purchased the same for themselves. The petitioner Radha Nath Dey also stated that he was willing to purchase the two items of property covered by the two sales at Rs. 400 each. The learned Munsif on receipt of the said petitions and on hearing the pleaders of all the parties ordered the properties to be re-sold on the 26th March 1925. On that date petitions were filed by the decree-holder in which it was stated that the decree-holder was absent, that an appeal against the said orders of the 25th February was contemplated and that the sales should not take place until that appeal was disposed of. That application was rejected and the decree-holder refused to bid at the sales and the properties were knocked down to Radha Nath for Rs. 400 for each plot; that is to say, for Rs. 800 in all. The Nazir submitted a report as to the sales which had taken place and the bids of Radha Nath were accepted by the Court. The orders of the 25th February 1925 which have been challenged on behalf of the petitioners in these two Rules unfortunately do not give any reason and on a perusal of those orders it would seem as if there was no valid ground for ordering resales. The learned Munsif should have in the aforesaid orders given some reasons as to why he thought it necessary not to accept the bids of the decree-holder and why he thought that resales were necessary in the present cases. It is the omission on the part of the Munsif to record his reasons in this respect which probably led to the issuing of these Rules.

3. The facts of the case, however, have now been placed before me in the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the opposite party and it appears to me that, as a matter of fact the opposite party might very well contend that the properties had originally been sold at inadequate prices and also that he had no opportunity of bidding at the sales. The question in these circumstances is whether the Court had a discretion to make the order which it did and whether that discretion has been properly exercised in view of the circumstances of these particular cases. It has bean laid down by this Court in several cases amongst which reference need only be made to the decision of Coxe, J., in the case of Rajendra Prasad Jha v. Upendra Nath Jha [1915] 21 Cri.L.J. 174 and to the unreported decision of Newbould, J., in the case of Fazil Meah v. Prosanna Kumar Roy A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 316 that by reason of the third condition on the back of the sale proclamation a discretion is reserved to the Court to accept or not to accept a bid in view of the particular circumstances disclosed in the case and that condition expressly states that it shall be in the discretion of the Court or the officer holding the sale to decline acceptance of the highest bid when the price offered aypears so clearly inadequate as to make it advisable to do so.

4. Upon the facts to which I have referred it can reasonably be held that the Court, if it had a discretion, was right in exercising that discretion upon the particular facts of these cases. The orders passed for resale, therefore, in my opinion appear to be correct and I decline to interfere in these cases. The Rules must, therefore, be discharged with costs one gold mohur in each case.


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