AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is directed against the order dt. 28th Dec. 1984, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa (Mr. R. G. Sindhakar), dismissing the application of the petitioners auction purchasers for delivery of possession of the property which was purchased by them in the auction sale held on 12th June 1984 (under the orders of the learned District Judge) and it has been confirmed on 23rd July 1984.
The respondent No. 1 Corporation/Decree-Holder filed an application under S.31 of the State Financial Corporation Act , 1951, against the respondent No.2 partnership firm/judgment-debtor for sale of the mortgaged property. The learned District Judge granted the application and sold the property by public auction on 12th June 1984. The petitioners action purchasers purchased the said property in the auction for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The learned District Judge-confirmed the auction sale on 23rd July 1984 and issued sale certificate in favour of the auction purchasers. Thereafter the auction purchasers applied for delivery of possession of the property which they has purchased in auction. The learned District Judge issued notices to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder by its reply stated that it had not objection if the auction purchases'' application for possession of the property was granted. The judgment-debtor opposed the said application and contended that the property belonged to the National Small Industries Corporation and receiver had been appointed by the trial Court and, therefore, the auction purchasers'' application for possession of the property was liable to be rejected.
The learned District Judge by his order dt. 28th Dec. 1984 held that under the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act . 1951, he could sell the mortgage property; however, he had no powers to order delivery of possession of the property sold in the auction. The attention of the learned District Judge was drawn to the provisions of sub-sec. (8) of S. 32 of the said Act , but in his opinion those provisions did not enable him to deliver possession of the property sold as per the provisions of s. 31 of the said Act . the procedure to be followed on the application under s. 31 is laid down in S. 32 Sub-sec. (8) of S. 32 reads thus:
"32(8) an order of attachment or sale of property under this Section shall be carried into effect as far as practicable in the manner provided in the Civil P.C. 1908, for the attachment or sale of property in execution of a decree as if the Financial Corporation were the decree-holder."
The above provisions are very clear regarding the applicability of the provisions of the Civil P>C. 1908, to the attachment and sale effected by the District Judge under the provisions of S. 31. When a district Judge is empowered to attach and sell the property and also to confirm the sale and issue sale certificate to the auction purchaser, it is inconceivable that the District Judge has no authority under the said Act to deliver possession of the property to the auction purchaser. In the present case the petitioners-auction purchasers paid the full amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards the purchase price and sale in their favour was confirmed and sale certificate was issued. Therefore it follows, as a matter of course, that the auction purchasers are entitled to possession of the property they have purchased and the learned District Judge has the power to deliver possession of the property to the auction purchasers.
Consequently, I find that the learned District Judge was not right in dismissing the application of the petitioners-auction purchasers for delivery of possession of the property.
In the result, the revision succeeds and it is allowed and the rule is made absolute,. The order of the learned District Judge dismissing the application of the petitioners-auction purchases for delivery of possession of the property is set aside. The learned District Judge shall proceed to pass orders in accordance with law indicated above. The necessary orders for delivery of possession of the property shall be passed as expeditiously as possible. The respondent 2 judgment-debtor shall pay the costs of the petition. The writ shall be issued as early as possible.
Revision allowed.