MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LIMITED Vs. MEEDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A bus was attached on 13th February, 1972, in Execution Case No. 8 of 1972. Opposite Party No. 1 was the decree-holder and opposite party No. 2 the judgment-debtor in that execution case. An objection was filed on 26th August, 1972, by the applicant in the present revision under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Civil PC claiming that it was the owner of the bus and that the opposite party No. 2 was just a hirer. The case of the applicant was that the opposite party No. 2 had failed to pay the instalments as contemplated under the hire-purchase agreement and the ownership of the bus all along continued with the applicant. This objection seems to have been put up for orders on 28th August, 1972. It was dismissed on that date by the following order :-

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties I am of opinion that the order sought to be revised cannot be sustained. A copy of the objections filed by the applicant was placed before me. Paragraph 2 of the objection states that one Surjit Singh Johar is an inspector of the objector. The applicant company has its office at Asif Ali Road, New Delhi. In the objection it was stated that Surjit Singh Johar was resident of 1912, Pataudi house, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the objection are to the effect that it was on 11th of August, 1972, that Surjit Singh Johar aforesaid came to know of the various proceedings relating to the said bus. He thereafter gave information in this behalf to the applicant. The matter was scrutinised and files were got inspected and it was only then that the objector came to know about the attachment proceedings. It was further stated that the objections were being preferred at the earliest possible opportunity and they were not at all delayed. No notice was issued of this objection and after hearing the counsel for the objector it was summarily rejected by the order quoted above. It would be seen that no limitation is prescribed for filing an objection under O.21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court would, however, be justified in view of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Order 21, Rule 58 not to make any investigation into the claim made by the objector if it considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. The proviso is not to the effect that the Court would be justified in not making any investigation if the claim or objection was simply delayed. The delay must have occurred either designedly or unnecessarily. 'Designedly' means by design, purposely, or intentionally. In Agrawal Pathshala v. Karim Bux, (AIR 1969 All 139) it was held:-

(3.) IN the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed and the order of the Additional Civil Judge dated 28th August, 1972, is set aside. He will now dispose of the objection in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The parties will bear their own costs. The record of the court below will be sent down forthwith so that the objection is now decided without any further delay. Revision allowed.