A POONGAVANA NAICKER Vs. S MUTHURAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In execution of a decree in O. S. No. 13 of 1949 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, certain properties belonging to the judgment debtor, who had become subsequently insolvent were ordered to be sold by a sale warrant of the sub court dated 27-10-1950 and the Central Nazir of the District Court was authorised to conduct the sale on 1-11-1950 by public auction. Accordingly, the Central Nazir put up the properties for auction and there were bids at that auction. The sale went on for some time and the highest bidder was ascertained on 1-11-1950, It so happened that on that day the Subordinate Judge was on casual leave and on the next day on an application made by the Official Receiver, the Subordinate Judge directed that the sale should be continued from day to day till 6-11-1950. On the same evening the Central Nazir took up the matter before the District Judge who, by an administrative order, held that as the sale conducting officer had no notice of any petition either for adjournment of the sale or for any other relief, when he put up the properties for sale on 1-11-1950, the holding of the sale by him was correct and the conclusion of the sale on that day itself by him was correct. The District Judge further expressed an opinion that there is no rule which prohibits the sale conducting officer duly authorised by warrant from conducting and concluding the sale simply on the ground of the presiding officer's absence on casual leave. The Judge further went on to observe that if the Court which directed the holding of the sale by the Central Nazir thought that the sale was irregular, it is for that Court to set it aside, but it cannot return the amount of the sale proceeds tendered by the sale officer and received by the Chief Ministerial officer of the Court, completely ignoring the sale held by the Central Nazir on 1-11-1950. These proceedings were administrative in nature and at the time the District Judge professed to pass this order neither party nor counsel was present. On 4-11-1950, one of the creditors of the judgment- debtors, whose estate has become vested in the Official Receiver, applied under Section 151, C.P.C., for directions that the Central Nazir should be ordered not to conclude the sale held on 1-11-1950. The Subordinate Judge on that application held that the remedy of the aggrieved party was to apply to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and therefore, held that the petition was not maintainable. He also held that the Official Receiver who alone can have any grievance in the matter has not applied for that relief and, therefore, the application by the creditor was not maintainable. On both these grounds I. A. No. 719 of 1950 in E. P. No. 130 of 1950 was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on 6-11-1950. Having been aggrieved by this order of the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the lower Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law, the creditor seeks to revise the order of the lower Court.

(2.) Mr. K. Bhimasankaram appearing for the decreeholder raises a belated preliminary objection that the Order of the Subordinate Judge dated 6-11-1950 being administrative in nature is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 115, C. P. C., and that this Court, in its judicial capacity, has no jurisdiction to interfere. The learned counsel contended that on the analogy of orders passed under Order 21, Rule 66 and the other provisions of the Code regarding settling of the upset prices and various other details prior to the culmination of the sale, having been held as administrative it should be deemed that the present order, whereby the Court, which was approached under Section 151, refused the relief asked for, should also be deemed to be an administrative one. I am unable to agree with this contention. What has happened is that when the Court was asked to give directions to the sale conducting officer not to conclude the sale but to continue it 'de die in diem' from 1-11-1950 and when the matter was argued in open Court in the presence of the parties and the procedure laid down for judicial proceedings was followed, it is difficult to say that the order is in the nature of an administrative one, I am definitely of opinion that the order of the Subordinate Judge, dated 611- 1950, is a case decided within the meaning of Section 115, C. P. C., and is revisable.

(3.) The question then arises as to whether the Court below has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in holding that the sale has been concluded on 1-11-1950. That the Central Nazir of the District Court is an officer empowered to conduct the sale is clear and evident from Rule 200, Civil Rules of Practice which states that the person appointed to sell the property shall conduct the sale in the manner prescribed by the Code for the sale of attached property etc. According to the structure of the administrative machinery at the head quarters of the District, the Cental Nazir of the District Court is a person who is automatically deemed to be appointed for purposes of conducting court sales under Rule 200. There is no dispute that the Central Nazir in this case was the proper person to conduct the sale. Appendix E Schedule 1, C. P. C., form No. 29 deals with the proclamation of sale and para. 3 of the conditions of sale states that the highest bidder shall be declared to be the purchaser of any lot, provided always that he is legally qualified to bid and provided that it shall be in the discretion of the Court or the officer holding the sale to decline the acceptance of the highest bid when the price offered appears so clearly inadequate as to make it advisable to do so. This condition, which has a force of law, because it is a form in Appendix E to the Civil Procedure Code, lays down clearly that it is within the discrimination of the Court to accept or reject a bid before the sale conducting officer. Mr. Seshachariar, for the purchaser, very strenuously contends that when the property is knocked down for the highest bid, the Court has no further jurisdiction in the matter to say that the sale has not become complete; that is, automatically the Court must accept the highest bid and hold that the person who has knocked it down is the purchaser and thereby the sale is concluded. I am not able to agree with this contention. Form No. 71, Civil Rules of Practice, relates to the report of the Central Nazir or other auctioneer under Rule 200(2) to the Court and there it is laid down as to what the Central Nazir should state to the Court regarding the procedure and the manner in which the sale was conducted. It is not necessary to extract here in detail the various clauses as well as schedules mentioned in that form because para. 3 says that the Central Nazir has to inform the Court that he put up the several lots for sale by auction at so and so and the person who knocked down the several lots. It is then left to the Court to accept the action of the Central Nazir or to reject it. To say that because the sale conducting officer has accepted the highest bid and, therefore, the Court has no further jurisdiction but should, as it were, take upon itself the vicarious duty of confirming the sale, is in my opinion, illogical. It is not as if this decision is bereft of authority. In -- 'Jaibhdar Jha v. Matukdhari Jha', AIR 1923 Pat 525 (A), Das and Macpherson JJ. had considered a matter of similar nature. They held that an execution sale, whether held in the immediate presence of the presiding officer of the Court or not, is not complete until the presiding officer of the Court has accepted the bid and declared the purchaser under Order 21, Rule 84. A mere order to close the bidding does not complete the sale even though the highest bidder is erroneously permitted to make the deposit required by Rule 84. They further held that the formal order declaring who has purchased the property put up for sale should be submitted for signature under Rule 84 expeditiously, before the presiding officer rises for the day. The following observations at page 527 are pertinent.