& Ors Vs. Fatima Sultana Begum & Ors  INSC 675 (14 November 1995)
M. Punchhi, S.C. Sen.
O R D
administrative suit, the parties had agreed for sale of a property at Ootacamund
in the State of Tamil Nadu.
receivers appointed by the Court for the purpose sold the said property. The
appellants herein are the purchasers thereof. Some of the parties to the suit
raised objections to the sale purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 90 read
with Section 151 CPC. An objection was raised before the trial court that such
objections were not maintainable. The trial court framed a preliminary issue
and went into the matter. It rejected the application being not maintainable.
respondents herein took the matter in appeal to the High Court which was placed
before a Division Bench for disposal.
High Court agreed with the trial court that an objection under Order 21, Rule
90 CPC to such a sale did not lie. But, since the sale had been effected by the
court through its appointed receivers, the High Court viewed that the court had
full control and grip over the matter, empowering it to oversee whether the
sale had been properly conducted and if the was any other objection thereto,
what was the merit of the objection. This role of the court was spelled out by
the High Court to be within the domain of Section 151 CPC which recognises and
preserves the inherent powers of the Civil Court. It is for that purpose that the High Court. It is for that
purpose that the High Court effected a remand to the trial court to go into the
matter, holding the application filed by the respondents maintainable. That
view is in question before this Court.
hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are in total unison with the views expressed
by the High Court.
administrative suit, the receivers appointed by the court to perform a function
are agents of the court and like a good principal, the court can put the
receivers to accountability. To awaken the role of the court in that behalf,
applications by the parties connected with the suit, are perfectly in order to
obviate any doubt entering in that regard and to effect a sense of transparency
so that no blame or aspersion is cast on the court for its having handled the
matter in a particular way. The court's role is of a balancer.
also to be borne in mind that interests of justice are the primary
consideration in granting or not granting prayers in a petition under Sec. 151
CPC. No rule or procedure can curtail that power of the court. The High Court
rightly has pursued that path in permitting promote the cause of justice. We,
therefore, see no reason to interfere in the said order.
appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to