TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (12) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this appeal. More facts : Appellant Gangabai leased out a portion of her land in Nazul plot No. 2. sheet No. 15/B of Murtizapur Municipality to one Ram Pratap Agrawal (predecessor or respondent Nos. 2 to 5). A civil suit was filed by the appellant in 1970 for recovery of possession of the land from the lessee. That suit was decreed by the trial court and in appeal filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 the suit was compromised pursuant to which a compromise decree was passed. As per the terms of the compromise decree the judgment-debtors (respondent Nos. 2 to 5) were to vacate the premises by 31.12.1990. As they failed to vacate within the said time limit the appellant took out execution proceedings. What happened in the meanwhile is the cause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owever, Appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000 in court on 12.3.1984 which is more than the arrears of tax amount claimed by the Municipal Council. Normally, by operation of the order dated 24.2.1984 of the civil court the sale should have remained cancelled by the aforesaid deposit. But the scope for dispute arose between the appellant and the first respondent on account of what happened subsequent thereto. Appellant filed an application for cancellation of sale which was dismissed by the court with the observation that it is open to him to file a fresh suit for that purpose. Though the appellant filed a fresh suit the same was dismissed for default on 7.11.1990. First respondent deposited balance of the bid amount i.e. 3/4th of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tween the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined on the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Perhaps Sub-section (i) would not have made it clear that dispute between a party to the suit and another claiming to be his representative could have been resolved in execution proceedings. But that doubt to longer subsists in view of Sub-section (3) which reads: (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court. Even a transferee pendente lite is representative of his tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....court's direction contained in the interlocutory order dated 24.2.1984 would not become a nullity, whatever happened during the pendency of the suit land what all actions taken pursuant to any orders passed by the court during the interregnum would remain a reality unless the court itself had disturbed or modified them. Would first respondent have got the rights or the appellant by bidding in a sale which was conditioned by the court through the order dated 24.2.1984. The sale should have gone off the very day if the plaintiff in that suit had deposited the amount as per directions of the court. Neither the Chief Officer nor even the Municipal Council had the authority to bypass the order of the civil part by confirming the sale on a later....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale of immovable property is held, or even when any objections are so raised and the Chief Officer is satisfied that there is no valid ground to set aside the sale and if full payment is made as required by these rules, the Chief Officer shall confirm the sale by granting a certificate as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 156 in Form "C". (emphassis supplied) A reading of Rule 8(2) in association with Sub-rule (3) and Rule 13 would unmistakably show that the requirement to pay the balance 75 per cent within 15 days is mandatory. The consequence of non-payment of the balance amount within the fixed period must peremptorily visit the purchaser. Neither the Chief Officer nor even the Municipal Council has power to relax or even concern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... operation of the conditions imposed by the courts, whatever is the excess the fact remains that first respondent did not pay the balance sale amount within 15 days of sale. The sale of 27.2.1984 would, therefore, stand annulled ipso jure without anything more. Learned Counsel for the first respondent relied on two decision of this Court to support his contention that stranger auction purchaser must be protected against the attempts of judgment-debtor or decree-holder to epp him out even if there were latches on the part of those persons in conducting the sale. See : Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. and Sardar Govindrao Mahadid and Anr. v. Devi Sahai and Ors. `. Neither of these two decisions has any usefulness in this case, it has been....