PHOOLCHAND Vs. BADRI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 (c) of the Constitution. It has been referred to this Full Bench for decision, because some of the points involved in this case are the same which arise in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 1952 (Mst. Gulab Bai v. Mst. Manphul Bai) in which certain questions were referred to a Full Bench.

(2.) The present application has arisen in the following circumstances: A decree was passed in August 1927 by the District Judge of Alwar in favour of one Gbvindi and against the present applicants Phulchand and Surajmal for about Rs. 7,000/-. It was put into execution, and a compromise was then arrived at by which a certain sum was to be deposited in cash and the rest of the decretal amount was to be paid in annual instalments of Rs. 600/-. In 1931, another execution application was made, and a house was attached, and was sold on the 13th May, 1940. Thereafter, there were certain objections under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil P. C., which were dismissed, and the sale was confirmed on the 8th September 1943, and the sale certificate was issued on the 6th September 1944. It appears however that another objection was taken in August, 1943, and that objection was finally decided by the Rajendra Shashan of the former covenanting State of Alwar in April, 1949. Possession of the house barring a certain portion in the occupation of the mother of the judgmentdebtors applicants was also made over to the decree-holder. Thereafter, after the decision of the Rajendra Shashan in April 1949 an application was filed on the 18th July, 1949, by the applicants contending that the sale was void ab initio, as the mandatory provisions of Order XXI, Rr. 84 and 85, Civil P. C. had been disregarded, and the applicants prayed for restoration of possession. This application was dismissed on the 28th September 1949. There was an appeal by the judgment-debtors, which was allowed and possession was ordered to be restored to them. Then there was a second appeal to this court, which was heard by a Division Bench. The second appeal was allowed. The present application is for leave to appeal against the decree of this Court.

(3.) The first point which arises for consideration is whether leave can be granted under Article 133 (1) (c) ,of the Constitution in a case in which the point in dispute is measurable in terms of money, and the valuation is less than Rs. 20,000/-. This was the first question which was referred to the Full Bench in Miscellaneous case No. 5 of 1952. The answer we have given in that case is that even though the point in dispute is measurable in terms of money, and the valuation is less than the minimum amount, it is open to the High Court to grant a certificate under Article 133 (1) (c) if the High Court is of the opinion that the question involved is of general public importance. The objection therefore of the opposite party that the High Court cannot give leave under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution because the point in dispute is measurable in terms of money, and the valuation is less than Rs. 20,000/- has no force.