2014 (2) TMI 1426 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses intervenor's review application in property dispute appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the application for review/recall of the order passed in the appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC. The court ... Review/recall of an order - Recovery proceedings for unrecovered loan - right of the intervenor was not considered - judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of DENA BANK VERSUS BHIKHABHAI PRABHUDAS PAREKH AND CO. AND OTHERS [2000 (4) TMI 36 - SUPREME COURT] is not applied properly - HELD THAT:- The applicant herein admittedly was an intervenor in M.A No. 1153/1999 and they were claiming their right to the property by virtue of the auction held in their favour at the instance of Sales Tax Department. An intervenor cannot claim any relief or decree for himself in the capacity of an intervenor in the appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C, that being the legal position. It is clear that in M.A No. 1153/1999, the applicant as an intervenor could not claim any relief for himself, accordingly, even if this application is allowed and the appeal proceedings under Order 21 Rule 58 are restored the intervenor cannot get any benefit as he cannot claim any relief for himself. That being so no useful purpose would be served in considering the question of review at the instance of the applicant. Application dismissed. Issues: Review/recall of an order passed in an appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC; Maintainability of review application by an intervenor.Issue 1: Review/recall of an order passed in an appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPCThe dispute in this case arose from a judgment against the judgment debtor, a company that had taken a loan from a bank. The State Government intervened in the execution proceedings, claiming priority over the property due to outstanding sales tax dues. The appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC, M.A No. 1153/1999, was decided in favor of the bank, with the applicant, an intervenor, raising concerns that their rights were not considered. The applicant argued that the appellate court erred in not addressing their claim, citing judgments to support their position. The senior counsel for the respondent objected to the review application's maintainability, stating that no error was apparent on the record and an intervenor cannot seek relief for themselves in the proceedings. The court, after considering the arguments, held that the intervenor could not claim relief for themselves in the appeal and dismissed the application, granting the applicant liberty to pursue other available remedies.Issue 2: Maintainability of review application by an intervenorThe respondent's senior counsel contended that the review application by the intervenor was not maintainable on the grounds that no error was evident on the record and an intervenor cannot seek relief for themselves in the proceedings. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, it was argued that while an intervenor can support or oppose the parties' claims, they cannot claim separate relief for themselves. The court agreed with this position, stating that the intervenor in this case, who participated in the auction held by the Sales Tax Department, could not claim any relief for themselves in the appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC. The court emphasized that the intervenor's role is limited to supporting or opposing the parties' claims and cannot independently stake a claim to the property. Therefore, the court dismissed the application, noting that even if allowed, the intervenor could not benefit from the appeal proceedings.In conclusion, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the application for review/recall of the order passed in the appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC, emphasizing that an intervenor cannot seek relief for themselves in such proceedings. The court granted the applicant liberty to explore other available remedies but maintained that no useful purpose would be served by considering the review at the intervenor's instance.