H M NOORDEEN Vs. J M SULTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE very same petitioner came to this Court on an earlier occasion in C.R.P.No.2765 of 1997, seeking to set aside the order of Scheme Court on 23.9.1997. At that time, I did not admit the revision petition on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner lies only before the civil court by filing a review application. Petitioner is a successful bidder of the auction held on 22.7.1997 which entitles him to have the entire hundial collection of the Nagore Dargha for the months of September and October, 1997. He bid in the auction for Rs.29,80,000. He was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.14,77,500 being 50% of the bid amount after deduction a sum of Rs.25,000 which was already deposited at the time of participating in the bid. For the remaining 50% of the amount, he was asked to furnish necessary security, which was also made. THE period of collection is from 1.9.1997 to 31.10.1997. While petitioner was making the collections, third respondent filed I.A.No.58 of 1997 on 29.8.1997 falsely alleging that the petitioner has not deposited the security amount for 50% of the bid amount, and prayed for cancellation of the auction. It seems that this I.A.No.58 of 1997 filed by third respondent came for arguments. Learned counsel for petitioner before the lower court as well as counsel for third respondent wanted to get an agreed order. On the basis of the agreement submitted before the lower court, all the 32 hundials in the Durgah were sealed with court seal by officer of court, and the hundials should be opened by the court officer and the amount should not be deposited into the State Bank of India. It was this order that was challenged in C.R.P.No.2765 of 1997, alleging that the petitioner did not authorise his counsel to make a joint endorsement or accept any proposal given by court. At any rate, petitioner says that he is entitled to collect the entire fees. According to him, the counsel did not have the authority to make such a statement to seal the 32 hundials without his consent.

(2.) PURSUANT to my direction in C.R.P.No.2765 of 1997, petitioner filed I.A.No.62 of 1997 bringing to the notice of the scheme court that the compromise memo was not signed by the parties and the Scheme Court should review its order dated 23.9.1997. When no orders were passed on those applications, petitioner again came to this Court, and I gave a direction to the lower court to dispose of the application within a time schedule.

(3.) IN a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of INdia, (1992)1 S.C.C. 31 their Lordships have considered the power of advocate while exercising his authority. Their Lordships have held that even after the Amendment of the Civil Procedure Code in 1976, it remains the same. If the petitioner again stresses about any right to participate in the bid, it can only be through court of law, for which petitioner has obtained necessary permission.