In the case of Balaji v. Nargolkar, the appellant, Mr. V. Balaji, and the respondent-decree holder, Mr. Amey Nargolkar, were involved in a dispute over an ex-parte order and auction sale of a property. The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the auction sale. The court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the respondent-decree holder. Stay tuned for more updates on this case.
Facts
- The appellant, aggrieved by the ex-parte order in Execution Petition No. 267/2005, filed an application before the Sub-Judge under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC.
- The ex-parte order was passed on 26.09.2005 as no one appeared on behalf of the appellant.
- The appellant contended that he learned about the ex-parte order only on 04.08.2006.
- A publication was made regarding the auction of the property in a local newspaper.
- The property was sold in a court auction on 03.02.2006, with the respondent-decree holder himself bidding for Rs.6,00,001/- and the sale being confirmed in his favor.
- Ex-parte order dated 26.09.2005 was set aside and Execution Petition was directed to be heard afresh.
- Appellant-judgment debtor filed a revision before the High Court as they were aggrieved.
- High Court allowed the CRP on the grounds that the appellant had knowledge about the ex-parte order and notice of auction.
- Even though the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings, no action was taken thereafter.
Also Read: Judgment on Service of Summons and Authenticity of Power of Attorney
Arguments
- Mr. V. Balaji appeared on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Amey Nargolkar appeared on behalf of the respondent-decree holder.
- The Execution Court noted that the appellant was not residing at the address to which the summon was sent.
- Fresh notice should have been ordered if the summon was not duly served on the appellant-judgment debtor.
- The appellant was set ex-parte on 04.08.2006 leading to further proceedings in the Execution Petition.
- The property was auctioned, and the respondent-decree holder became the auction purchaser.
Also Read: Jurisdiction of Family Court in Cases under Muslim Women’s Protection Act
Analysis
- The publication of the auction was done in Malayalam
- There is no evidence to prove that the appellant-judgment debtor was proficient in Malayalam
- The appellant-judgment debtor did not receive effective service of notice
- The Execution Court should have issued a fresh notice rather than proceeding with the auction
Also Read: Clarity on Arbitration Seat Jurisdiction
Decision
- The appellant is allowed to make necessary application before the sub Registrar for cancellation of the court auction sale dated 03.02.2006.
- The respondent-decree holder is permitted to withdraw Rs. 10,00,000 deposited before the Execution Court.
- In satisfaction of the decree passed in O.S. No 271 of 1999, the respondent-decree holder is entitled to receive Rs. 12,50,000.
- The amount of Rs. 12,50,000 is in full satisfaction of all the claims of the respondent-decree holder.
- The concerned Sub-Registrar shall make necessary entries in the Registers.
- The appellant-judgment debtor has already deposited Rs. 10,00,000 before the Execution Court.
- The appellant-judgment debtor is required to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the respondent-decree holder within eight weeks.
- The court auction sale held on 03.02.2006 is set aside since the respondent-decree holder has been paid the decree amount as agreed by the parties.
- Consequently, Execution Petition No 267/2005 has to be restored.
Case Title: M/S. GOLDEN EARTH GROVES LTD. Vs. M/S. ION EXHANGE ENVIRO FARMS LTD. (2020 INSC 170)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001482-001482 / 2020
