AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
King, J.—The parties in this petition are decree-holder and auction purchaser respectively in the matter of a sale held in 1933. The auction
purchaser, of course, deposited the money required including poundage, and this money remained in Court for four years. In the meanwhile the
judgment-debtor initiated proceedings which resulted in the setting aside of the sale. The auction purchaser accordingly applied for the return of his
purchase money and also for the return of poundage. The first order which was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Ellore was on the 25th
November, 1939. In that order the return of the money with interest was ordered, but the petitioner was informed that he should apply to
Government if he wished to obtain refund of the poundage. The decree-holder was dissatisfied with this order in so far as it called upon him to pay
interest and he applied under Order 47 for review. The learned Subordinate Judge granted the review and passed an order refusing to call upon
the decree-holder to pay any interest to the auction purchaser. He also reviewed that part of his previous order which dealt with the question of
poundage holding that one half of the poundage should be paid by the decree-holder to the auction purchaser and that in respect of the other half,
he should apply to Government. It is the decree-holder who is the present petitioner. Although he is satisfied with the review in so far as it, frees
him from the liability of paying any interest, he holds that the modification in the order in regard to poundage is not justified and should be revised,
his point being that as there was no application either by himself or his opponent for any modification of the order in so far as it related to the
poundage the Court had no jurisdiction to modify it. It seems to me that this contention must fail inasmuch as rule 8 of Order 47 clearly lays it
down that when the Court grants an application for review it may at, once ""re-hear the case"". That surely means that it may hear the case in full and
deal with every point which it is necessary to consider before passing a fresh order.
The respondent in this petition also objects to the order passed upon review for another reason. His ground is that the circumstances did not
justify the granting of the application for review. This application was granted, it should now be mentioned, because the Court found on referring to
rule 93 of Order 21, that the order to pay interest could be passed only against a person to whom money had been paid. Admittedly, in this case,
the money had remained throughout in Court deposit. The first order therefore calling upon the decree-holder to pay interest to the auction
purchaser was not justified by the terms of rule 93. Holding, accordingly, that the order disclosed on the face of it, an error of law, the learned
Judge granted the review. It is now argued for the respondent that rule 93 is not exhaustive in this respect and that even though under rule 93 there
was no power in the Court to pass any order for the payment of interest, such a power is inherent in the Court and can be invoked under the
provisions of Section 151. There is no authority in support of this contention, and it is a well-known principle of law that, where special provisions
exist in the Code to deal with particular situations, Section 151 cannot be invoked. In my opinion rule 93 of Order 21 deals with the whole
question of what is to happen to the money which has been deposited by the auction purchaser when a sale has been set aside, and the fact that
rule 93 permits the Court to make a particular order against a party only if that party has received the money is to my mind exhaustive, and means
that no order can be passed against him in any other circumstances. I am accordingly of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge was right when
he held that he was entitled to review his previous order under the provisions of Order 47.
In the result this civil revision petition must fail and the memorandum of cross-objections also fails. Each is dismissed with costs.