(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows: the Court: Both the above appeals have been preferred by the appellant, prema Gupta, against two orders, being order dated 2nd May, 2006 (in G. A. No. 940 of 2006, E. C. No. 15 of 1998) and order dated 10th May, 2006 (in g. A. No. 4949 of 1998, E. C. No. 15 of 1998 with E. O. S. No. 320 of 1998), passed by the Hon'ble First Court.
(2.) THE appellant Prema Gupta is the mother of the judgment debtor, one ashok Kumar Gupta, who suffered a decree on 21st August, 1998 passed by a Hyderabad Court for a sum of Rs. 20. 91 lakhs approximately. The decree was subsequently transmitted to this High Court for the purpose of execution. It is at the stage of execution of the decree that the appellant Prema Gupta, for the first time, approached the Hon'ble First Court for the purpose of trying to assert the fact that her son Ashok Kumar Gupta, who was the judgment debtor, has no right, title and interest over any of the flats in question, which were to be sold in execution of the decree suffered by her son. The Hon'ble first Court, while passing the order dated 2nd May, 2006 has, inter alia, observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already recorded in the judgment and order dated 26th September, 2005 that Prema Gupta has never pressed her claim as the owner of the property and that her application for intervention was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 8th August, 2005. The Hon'ble First Court has further held in the order dated 2nd May, 2006 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not reserve her liberty to apply before the Hon'ble First Court after dismissal of her application. It may be perhaps appropriate to refer to the order dated 2nd May, 2006 in its entirety. The same is set out herein below:
(3.) IN so far as the other impugned order is concerned, that is to say, the order dated 10th May, 2006 it appears that the said order was passed on an application for sale of the properties of the judgment debtor, wherein Prema gupta was one of the interested parties who wanted to give her bid, but prayed for further time to consider as she was not in a position to give her bid at that point of time. The order dated 10th May, 2006 is also reproduced hereinbelow in its entirety: