http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: L MOOLCHAND & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: FATIMA SULTANA BEGUM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1995

BENCH: M. M. PUNCHHI, S.C. SEN.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      In an  administrative suit,  the parties had agreed for sale of a property at Ootacamund in the State of Tamil Nadu. The receivers  appointed by  the Court  for the purpose sold the said  property. The appellants herein are the purchasers thereof. Some  of the  parties to the suit raised objections to the  sale purporting  to be  under Order 21, Rule 90 read with Section  151 CPC.  An objection  was raised  before the trial court  that such objections were not maintainable. The trial court  framed a  preliminary issue  and went  into the matter. It  rejected the application being not maintainable. The respondents herein took the matter in appeal to the High Court which was placed before a Division Bench for disposal. The High Court agreed with the trial court that an objection under Order 21, Rule 90 CPC to such a sale did not lie. But, since the  sale had  been effected  by the court through its appointed receivers,  the High  Court viewed  that the court had full  control and grip over the matter, empowering it to oversee whether  the sale had been properly conducted and if the was  any other  objection thereto, what was the merit of the objection. This role of the court was spelled out by the High Court  to be within the domain of Section 151 CPC which recognises and  preserves the  inherent powers  of the Civil Court. It is for that purpose that the High Court. It is for that purpose  that the  High Court  effected a remand to the trial court  to go  into the matter, holding the application filed by  the respondents  maintainable.  That  view  is  in question before this Court.      After hearing  learned counsel  for the parties, we are in total  unison with the views expressed by the High Court. In an  administrative suit,  the receivers  appointed by the court to perform a function are agents of the court and like a good  principal,  the  court  can  put  the  receivers  to accountability. To  awaken the  role of  the court  in  that behalf, applications by the parties connected with the suit, are perfectly in order to obviate any doubt entering in that regard and  to effect  a sense  of transparency  so that  no blame or  aspersion is  cast on  the court  for  its  having handled the  matter in a particular way. The court’s role is of a balancer.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    It has  also to  be borne  in mind  that  interests  of justice are  the primary  consideration in  granting or  not granting prayers  in a  petition under Sec. 151 CPC. No rule or procedure  can curtail  that power of the court. The High Court rightly  has pursued  that path  in permitting promote the cause  of justice.  We,  therefore,  see  no  reason  to interfere in the said order.      The appeal,  therefore, fails  and is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs.