CAUSE TITLE:
Gas Point Petroleum India Limited v Rajendra Marothi & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
10th February 2023
JUDGE(S):
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. Shah.
PARTIES:
Appellant: Gas Point Petroleum India Limited
Respondent: Rajendra Marothi & Ors.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), has stated that the bidding customer must make a deposit of 25% of the total sum as required by Order XXI Rule 84 CPC. Within fifteen days of the sale date, the entire sum of the buy price must be paid.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Civil procedure Code 1980
- Order 21 Rule 64 – states the power to sell of the property and the related procedure to be followed while paying the respected person
- Order 21 Rule 84 – states that when the deposit by purchaser is made and there is resale on the default.
- Order 21 Rule 85 – states the time period of payment of purchase money.
- Order 21 Rule 86 – states the procedure which needs to be followed while default in payment.
BRIEF FACTS:
- A dispute arose between National Ginni Enterprises and Smt. Gayatri Agrawal regarding an L.P.G. gas agreement. Smt. Gayatri Agrawal filed a civil suit against National Ginni Enterprises, which resulted in a decree being issued by the learned Trial Court.
- The decree stated that National Ginni Enterprises must provide L.P.G. gas according to the agreement's terms. If they could not do so, Smt. Gayatri Agrawal would receive Rs. 2,38,450/- + Rs. 23,500/- for the cost of the gas cylinders and regulators, respectively.
- National Ginni Enterprises did not provide the gas cylinders and regulators, and the decree holder filed an execution petition to sell their property. The property was sold to respondent No. 1, but the appellant objected, stating that they had purchased the property from the judgment debtor earlier.
- The objections were overruled, and the application was rejected by the lower court under the order 21 rule 90 of CPC. The lower appellate court set aside the executing court's order and remanded the matter back to the executing court.
- The High Court later set aside the lower appellate court's decision, stating that the appellant failed to establish any irregularities or fraud in the sale therefore the original respondent No. 1 has appealed the High Court's decision.
QUESTIONS RAISED:
What is the applicability of the time period specified in Order 21 Rule 84 of Civil Procedure Code?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The counsel for the appellant strongly argues that the High Court made a serious mistake in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of the lower Appellate Court. The appellant contends that the sale of the property in question was vitiated due to non-compliance with Order 21 Rule 64 and Order 21 Rule 84/85 of the CPC.
- The auction purchaser was required to deposit 25% of the sale amount immediately and the remaining 75% within fifteen days of the auction. The counsel argues that the judgment debtor was not the owner of the property at the time of the auction, as the appellant had purchased it through a registered sale deed in 1999.
- The learned Senior Advocate representing the appellant argues that the High Court did not correctly consider the fact that the property in question was purchased by the appellant on 31.08.1999 from the judgment debtor when it was not the subject of a civil suit.
- The submission highlights the relevance of the timing of the purchase of the property by the appellant and the specific nature of the civil suit filed. The counsel's argument aims to establish that the High Court may have overlooked important details while making its decision.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent contests the argument made by the appellant that the High Court made an error in its decision. The counsel argues that the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeal, as the appellant did not properly raise the issue of non-compliance with Order 21 Rule 64, Order 21 Rule 84, and Order 21 Rule 85 before the Executing Court.
- The counsel further asserts that the property in question was not the subject matter of the civil suit filed, which was for specific performance of the L.P.G. gas agreement.
- In light of these facts, the counsel argues that the appellant's appeal should be dismissed. The respondent's submission highlights the procedural aspects of the case and aims to demonstrate that the appellant's arguments are not legally sound.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- The estate could not be placed up for sale because the judgement debtor did not represent the owner at the time it was put up for auction on October 18, 2011.
- It can be observed that the appellant had purchased a property prior to its auction by the court to recover a debt from the previous owner. It was noted that the property was not part of the lawsuit, and an injunction against transferring the firm did not apply to the appellant's property.
- However, the High Court considered the injunction against the appellant, and the Executing Court overruled the appellant's objections against the auction.
- The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court's and Executing Court's orders, and restored the lower Appellate Court's order. The respondent was allowed to retrieve the deposited amount.
CONCLUSION
In the above case the law suit filed in the year 1998 was not with respect to the property. It was contented that the defendants tried to sell off the property and accordingly the trials court ordered to go with status quo. The court ordered the Ginni enterprise to pay some amount and the LPG gas which this company failed to provide. Therefore to recover such amount the property was put up for the auction.
Respondent No. 1 made a payment of 25% of the total on November 3, 2011, rather than the subsequent 25% mandated by Order 21 Rule 84. The day after he was deemed the winning bidder, or on October 18, 2011, the auction buyer was needed to pay 25% of the total sum. According to Order 21 Rule 85, even the remaining 75% of the sum has not been paid.
In this instance, the entire sum of the purchase amount was submitted on November 4, 2011, which was beyond the time frame specified by Order 21 Rule 85. Therefore, there is a violation of CPC Order 21 Rules 84 and 85.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
