1952 (10) TMI 55 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court decision: Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, Subordinate Judge's order restored.

Keshardeo Chamria Versus Radha Kissen Chamria and Ors.

Keshardeo Chamria Versus Radha Kissen Chamria and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Certification and recording of payments towards the decree.2. Locus standi of the assignee to take out execution.3. Dispute over the interest payable on a sum of Rs. 1,60,000.4. Dismissal of the execution case on part satisfaction and its subsequent restoration.5. Jurisdiction of the High Court in reversing the Subordinate Judge's order under section 151, Civil Procedure Code.6. Appeal and revision jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115, Civil Procedure Code.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Certification and Recording of Payments Towards the Decree:The litigation began in 1923 with a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property, resulting in a compromise decree in 1926. The judgment-debtors paid a significant amount towards the decree within fifteen months, but failed to certify most of these payments within the legal timeframe. The court only recorded payments made within ninety days before the application, leading to a separate suit by the judgment-debtors to recover uncertified payments. A decree was passed in their favor in 1929 for these amounts, and further amounts were realized through execution proceedings.2. Locus Standi of the Assignee to Take Out Execution:In 1933, the decree was assigned to the appellant, who initiated execution proceedings in 1936. The judgment-debtors challenged the assignee's locus standi, claiming he was a benamidar. After prolonged litigation, it was decided in favor of the assignee, affirming the bona fide nature of the assignment.3. Dispute Over the Interest Payable on a Sum of Rs. 1,60,000:In 1942, the assignee sought attachment of new properties and arrest of the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors contended that a payment of Rs. 1,60,000 should be recorded as made on a different date, affecting the interest calculation. The Subordinate Judge ruled in favor of the judgment-debtors, but the High Court later upheld the decree-holder's contention, leading to further appeals and eventual withdrawal by the judgment-debtors.4. Dismissal of the Execution Case on Part Satisfaction and Its Subsequent Restoration:In March 1945, the execution case was dismissed on part satisfaction after the decree-holder's request for adjournment was rejected. The decree-holder applied for restoration under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, arguing that the dismissal was due to a procedural error by the court. The Subordinate Judge restored the execution, citing a denial of justice. This order was contested, leading to appeals and revisions.5. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Reversing the Subordinate Judge's Order Under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code:The High Court initially held that no appeal lay against the Subordinate Judge's order but entertained a revision application, remanding the case for reconsideration. The High Court later acknowledged the procedural error but still restored the execution case on terms, including compensatory costs against the decree-holder.6. Appeal and Revision Jurisdiction of the High Court Under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code:The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had jurisdiction to reverse the Subordinate Judge's order. It concluded that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, as the Subordinate Judge's order was within his jurisdiction and did not involve material irregularity. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to cases where the subordinate court acted without jurisdiction or with material irregularity, neither of which applied here.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed Appeal No. 12 of 1951, setting aside the High Court's interlocutory remand order and subsequent proceedings, and restored the Subordinate Judge's order dated 25th April 1945. Appeal No. 13 of 1951 was dismissed. Each party was directed to bear their own costs throughout the proceedings.