GOPAL PRASAD CHOURASIA Vs. PRABANNA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Gopal Prasad Chourasia is challenging the orders dt. 13-02-1985, passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Chhindwara holding that the "revision" filed against the order passed by the First Civil Judge, Class I, Chhindwara, in Insolvency Case No. 6/55 is not maintainable. (ii) The Insolvency Court in the orders dt. 13-08-1984, while dealing with the objection of the petitioner whether this petitioner has a right of pre-emption and accordingly whether he is a person aggrieved by the act of the Receiver (respondent 1 - then Guru Prasad Shrivastava, Advocate - now substituted by his L.R. Shri Prabanna Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate) inter alia, held that the order challenged by the petitioner Gopal Prasad Chourasia could be decided on the basis of the documents filed by him and no oral evidence is necessary to decide that matter. (iii) The learned Addl. Judge in the order dt. 13-02-1985 held, that the orders passed by the Court of Insolvency are appealable under S.75 and therefore, no revision lies. In the alternative it was also held that in the interlocutory order passed by the Civil Judge, he was of the view that in the light of documentary evidence, oral evidence is not necessary, and moreover, u/s.68, Insolvency Act, such Court cannot be compelled to take oral evidence or additional evidence and for this reason also, the revision is not maintainable. That seems to be the import of the impugned orders challenged in this petition.

(2.) The petitioner filed the impugned order dt. 13-02-85 by Additional District Judge but did not file copies of other order sheets, including the impugned orders passed by the Civil Judge dt. 13-08-1984. However, other documents have been filed in the returns separately filed on behalf of respondent 1 (Receiver), respondent 2 Sakibali Khan (purchaser), and respondent 3 Shri J. Saran (accused of having colluded with the Receiver in the insolvency proceedings.) On a perusal of the petition, the abovesaid returns and copies of documents filed, more particularly by the respondents, the following relevant circumstances emerge.

(3.) (a) In this background, the petitioner's case is that he was intending to purchase the property sold by the Receiver to respondent 2 Sakibali Khan; that the receiver without intimating any person much less the petitioner privately entered into an agreement with respondent 3 Shri J. Saran, Advocate, who is on friendly terms with the receiver and executed a sale deed in favour of Sakibali Khan, though, in fact, the real purchaser was Shri Saran and as soon as the proceedings come to an end respondent 2 will execute a sale deed in favour of respondent 3; that the petitioner raised an objection against execution of the sale deed, which is pending for decision before the Civil Judge; that along with the objection the applicant has filed several documents and also supported his claim by affidavit that he also made an application for permission to lead oral evidence which has been rejected by the Civil Judge; that against that order he preferred a Civil Revision in the High Court under S.115 of the Civil P.C., which was transferred to the Court of District Judge for decision in view of the amendments in S.115 C.P.C.; that the District Judge has rejected the revision petition in motion hearing; that there is no other remedy except to file this petition.