Pradesh Electricity Board, Rampur Vs.
M/S. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. & Ors  INSC 4 (3 January 1995)
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Manohar Sujata V. (J)
1995 SCC (1) 364 JT 1995 (1) 312 1995 SCALE (1)54
Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.
This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appel-
lant. The Civil Revision Petition was preferred against the Judgment of the
Third Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur in
Execution Case No.17-A of 1970 whereunder the learned Judge had allowed the
application filed by the respondent judgment-debtor.
appellant- decree-holder, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, is a statutory
corporation constituted under Section 5 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
The Government of Madhya Pradesh had granted a licence to the respondent under
the said Act for generating and supplying electricity to consumers at Bilaspur.
The appellant exercised the option of purchasing the respondent's undertaking
on 15.1.1963and 5.4.1964 as provided by Section 6of the Act. Accordingly, the
possession of the undertaking was delivered to the appellant but while doing
so, the respondent did not deliver possession of properties described in
Schedule-1 and Schedule-11 to the plaint. The appellant was, therefore, obliged
to file the Civil Suit No. 17-A of 1960 for obtaining possession of the said
properties on the ground that they form part of the undertaking. The suit was
decreed by the Trial Court on 25th August, 1973.
respondent and some other persons preferred an appeal to the Madhya Pradesh
High Court being First Appeal No.39 of 1974. The respondent raised a contention
in the said appeal that the property mentioned in Schedule-11 to the plaint was
sold to other appellants and, therefore, did not form part of the undertaking.
This plea was rejected by the High Court which held that the property in both
the Schedules did form part of the undertaking. While dismissing the appeal the
High Court observed: "we may, however, add that it would be open to the
defendant No. 1 to seek compensation for these properties in an appropriate
proceeding in 314 accordance with law". The appeal was accordingly
dismissed with costs.
appellant took out execution of the decree, wherein the first respondent filed
objections purporting to be under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code to the
effect that the compensation payable to him for the suit property should be
determined and should be directed to be paid to him in the said proceeding
itself This objection was upheld by the Executing Court which found that the
book value of the Schedule-1 properties is Rs. 1,15,000/- and that of
Schedule-11 properties, Rs.9,574.50 paise, a total of Rs.1,24,574/-. The
objections filed by the respondent were allowed in the following terms:
the result, the application is allowed. It is ordered that the M.P.Electricity
Board (Decree-Holder) shall within two months from today deposit in Court for
being paid to the applicants/judgment-debtors compensation of Rs.1,24,574.50 (Rs.
One lac twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred seventy four and paise fifty only),
failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest calculated at the bank
rate of Re- serve Bank of India, plus one per cent from today till payment. The
applicants shall be entitled to receive the compensation on payment of
requisite court fees as provided by law. "
executing court recorded in para 10 of its order that "possession of the
suit properties was ultimately delivered to the decree-holder on 27.12.83
through the process of this Court in the present execution proceedings".
is against the said order that the appellant filed a Civil Revision Petition
before the High Court. The appellant's contention was that the determination of
compensation is outside the purview of the executing court and outside the
purview of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code as well. Relying upon the
observations made in the Judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No.39 of
74, the appellant contended that the only course open to the respondent is to
file a suit in accordance with law, if it is so advised. The learned Single
Judge rejected this contention holding that Section 47 is wide enough and the
executing court is competent to decide the question of compensation for the
suit properties there under. The correctness of the said view is questioned in
our opinion, it is unnecessary to go into the scope of Section 47 of the Civil
Procedure Code in the present proceedings for the reason that while dismissing
the appeal preferred by the first respondent-judgment-debtor and other appellants,
the High Court had observed that so far as compensation is concerned "it
would be open to the defendant No. 1 to seek compensation for the properties in
an appro- priate proceeding in accordance with law." The words "in an
appropriate proceeding" in the said observation cannot certainly mean
execution proceeding of the very same decree, which is but the same proceeding.
The said words meant a separate independent proceeding. It is not for us to
express any opinion whether the proceeding contemplated is a suit or any other
proceeding. Suffice it to say that it does not certainly take in execution
proceedings of the very same decree. On this ground alone the appeal is allowed
and the judgment of the executing court as well as the judgment of the High
Court affirming it are set aside and the objections 315 filed by the first
respondent under Section 47 of the Civil.
Code are dismissed as not maintainable.
Harish Salve, learned counsel for the first respondent judgment-debtor requested
towards the end of the arguments that in such an eventuality his Objection
Petition filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code may be allowed to
be converted into a suit. Though we were inclined to accede to the said request
at first, we are of the opinion, on a further consideration, that the proper
course would be to leave it open to the first respondent to institute a suit or
adopt such other proceeding as may be open to him in accordance with law and to
direct that if such proceedings are taken within a period of three months from
today, the first respondent shall be entitled to claim the benefit of Section
14 of the Limitation Act for the period spent in pursuing the proceedings under
Section 47 including the period spent in appellate courts.
G.L.Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant made a grievance that possession
of all the suit properties have not been delivered to the appellant and that
the first respondent and other parties at its instance and on its behalf are
raising obstruction in obtaining possession of the properties. We have already
referred to the observation of the executing court that possession of the suit
properties was delivered to the appellant through the Court even on 27.12.83.
Mr. Salve, learned counsel for the first respondent affirmed the said fact and
stated that the first respondent is not in possession of any of the suit
properties and that they were delivered to the appellant as recorded by the
executing court. It is made clear that the appellant is entitled to take
possession and be in pos- session of all the suit properties, without any
obstruction by respondent or any person claiming through it.
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.