RAJESWARI Vs. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the learned Single Judge made in Application No.461 of 2004 in I.P.No.79 of 1972.

(2.) THE appellant herein sought for a direction to the Official Assignee to execute the sale deed in her favour. THE facts under which the instant application was made can be stated thus: One Munirathinam Naidu was declared as an Insolvent by the Court in I.P.No.79 of 1972. He was having a vast extent of land in Navalar Street, Rani Anna Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai. THE lands were occupied by various persons and if the lands were disposed of to those persons, then he would have got surplus amount and hence he could not have been declared as insolvent. When the matter came up before the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.Nos.28 and 29 of 1992, an order came to be passed on 22.4.1992, appointing Advocate Commissioners with a direction that the land in question was to be inspected by them and they should file their reports. Accordingly, the reports were filed on 29.10.1992. Based on the report of the Advocate Commissioners, the Official Assignee also filed two reports before the court. THE date of the earlier report could not be ascertained and the latter report was filed on 27.7.1994. THE Division Bench directed the Official Assignee to execute the sale deed in favour of the settlors. THE name of the applicant Rajeswari was actually found place in the report of the Official Assignee, dated 27.07.1994. Hence the application was made seeking direction to the Official Assignee to execute the sale deed in her favour.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel relying on the Bench decision of this court in O.S.A.No.29 of 1992, has stated that the Official Assignee has filed the report and therefore, on the basis of the report, there should be a direction given to the Official Assignee to execute the sale deed in favour of the respective parties that the name of the appellant was found place in the original report of the Official Assignee, dated 27.7.1994 that originally, an order came to be passed in A.No.461 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge with an observation that the fraud played in the Office of the Official Assignee gives him a cause of action to have the Bench order reviewed and it is open to them to take appropriate steps to have the Bench order reviewed that once there was a direction to take necessary steps before the Division Bench, it was not done so and that on the contrary, they have got a second report and also filed the same before the Court and would state that the report of the Advocate Commissioner did not contain the name of the appellant and therefore, the relief could not be granted.