SITAL CHANDRA BOSE Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA MITTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition on which this rule was granted stated that the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Parganas, being an order dated 4 May 1938, in the proceedings which are described as Money Execution Case No. 1 of 1938. The order complained of is in these terms: Decree-holders put in a petition praying that the execution case may be struck off on non-satisfaction for reasons stated therein, The petition is rejected, as the property advertised for sale has been knocked down and the bid is pending for Court's acceptance.

(2.) The present proceedings before us are remarkable in that the petitioner was the judgment-debtor and he is complaining against an order made by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, an order which the decree-holder himself does not complain of, though it was made on a petition put in by the decree-holder. It has been argued before us that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in rejecting the application of the decree holder for withdrawal of the execution case and in so doing, he exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law. There is the further usual allegation in cases of this kind that the Subordinate Judge acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in rejecting the said application. It is further contended that his reasons therefor were entirely unsound. In my opinion there is here no question of jurisdiction. The learned Subordinate Judge was dealing with the matter, which is described as Money Execution Case No. 1 of 1938, and he therefore was empowered and authorized and had jurisdiction to make such. orders as he thought necessary for the purpose of dealing with those proceedings. Apart altogether from the question of jurisdiction however, in my opinion, the learned Judge was perfectly justified in making the order which he made on 4 May last. The petition was this: Going back to 9 February 1938, we find that there was an. order directing the issue of a sale proclamation fixing 19 April 1938, for sale of the properties which are the subject-matter of the execution proceedings. There was a further order made on that date that the decree-holder was to file the finally published Record of Eights and the valuation roll of the properties. On the date for which the sale was fixed, viz. 19 April, the decree-holder put in a petition asking; for permission himself to bid at the sale. And that was allowed. On the same date the judgment-debtor appeared and filed a petition asking for time.

(3.) To that petition the decree-holder assent. ed and two weeks time was allowed to the judgment-debtor to discharge the judgment debt, and the sale was put off until 3 May 1938. On that date, an order was-recorded: "Nazir to conduct the sale and report." Then followed two other orders. The first is in these terms: "Received Nazir's report. One Sm. Raj Lakshmi Mitter purchased the property at Rupees 32,000. Put up to-morrow for acceptance of the bid." Then we find this recorded : "At this-stage, judgment-debtor puts in a petition praying for time till to-morrow for payment of the decretal dues. Put up to-morrow for order." So, once again, the judgment-debtor obtained time in which to pay. On the next day in accordance with that order, the judgment-debtor's petition came before the learned Judge and he made this order: "He (that is to say the judgment-debtor) is permitted to deposit the decretal amount. before the acceptance of the bid."