NILKANTHA NARAYAN SINGH Vs. MSZOHA, OFFICIAL RECEIVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected miscellaneous appeals and revisions arise out of the same matter, and the two revision applications have been filed in the event of it being held that no appeal lies from the order in question. The appeals are preferred by the decree-holder from an order of the learned Additional District Judge of Purulia sotting aside a sale which had taken place in execution of a decree which the decree-holder held against the judgment-debtor-respondent.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these proceedings can be shortly stated as follows: The judgment-debtor was one W.C. Banerji who was the lessee of a certain colliery known as the Bilbera colliery. The decree-holder was the lessor of the colliery in question. On 21 September 1938, the decree-holder filed a Huit against the judgment-debtor for arrears of royalty, and, in due course, he obtained a decree for those arrears which were made a charge on certain moveable and immovable properties in and around the colliery. On 15 December 1939, an application for execution was made and for sale of the properties charged. On 16 March 1940, the properties were put up for sale and purchased by the decree-holder. On 15 April 1940, objections were filed separately by the judgment-debtor and by the Official Receiver of the Calcutta High Court, and these objections appear to have been filed under Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. It appears that in a suit on the original side of the Calcutta High Court in which the judgment-debtor was the defendant, the Calcutta High Court had appointed the Official Receiver of that Court a receiver of W.C. Banerji's property-- hence his objection to the present sale. The Official Receiver alleged that he was a necessary party and that he had received no notice of the execution proceedings or of the pro-posed sale. It was further alleged on behalf of the objectors that there had been material irregularities in the publication and conduct of the sale which had resulted in the property being sold at a grossly inadequate price.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge who heard these objections at first instance held that they were without substance and rejected them. He came to the conclusion that the Official Receiver as receiver of the estate of the judgment- debtor was not a necessary party and that no notice was required to be served on him. He further held that there were no irregularities and the property had not been sold for an inadequate price. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge reversed the decision of the trial Court. He appears to have held that the Official Receiver, as receiver of the estate of the judgment-debtor, was entitled to notice and that the failure to serve notice on him amounted to a material irregularity and that such had caused injury to the judgment-debtor by reason of the fact that the property had been sold at a grossly inadequate price.