Find a Lawyer

Civil Rule No. 342 of 1954, against the order of the subordinate Judge, Noakhali, dated the 20th December 1953, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 161 of 1951, affirming that dated the 23rd August 1951, of the Munsif, 2nd Court Sudharam, in Miscellaneous Case No. 148 of 1950. Decided on 11^th January 1955.

O. XXI, r. 66 Sale held at grossly inadequate price‑Not void‑Obligations imposed by Court‑Does not arise in case coming under S. 174 (3) of Bengal Tenancy Act.

S. 115‑Subordinate Court refusing to exercise jurisdiction on erroneous view of law High Court whether competent to interfere in revision.

In execution of a rent decree, arising out of a proceeding under section 174 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the landlord put the rent land to sale and the same was knocked down for a sum of Rs. 100 to one A on 25th April 1949, and the auction‑purchaser took delivery of possession of the said land through Court on 19th June 1949. On 22nd September 1950, the judgment debtor, D, filed application for setting aside sale on grounds of fraud and material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale. The Munsif found that there was no irregularity or fraud in publishing and conducting the sale, but relying on the case of Tuli Bibi and others v. Aziz Ahmad 2 D L R 148 held no question of limitation would arise and therefore allowed the application. On appeal by the auction purchaser, the Subordinate Judge affirmed the decisions of the Munsif holding that the ruling on which the Munsif relied was binding on him:

Held, that the ruling in Tuli Bibi's case has been over ruled by a Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Nawab Sir K. G. M. Faroquie Kt. and others v. Karamat Ali and others 3 P L R (Dacca) 496. The ruling in the latter case lays down that where a sale had taken place at a serious under value due to Court's failure to carry out its obligations under the provisions of O. XXI, rule 66, it cannot be said that the sale was void and no question of limitation would arise. Further it lays down that the obligation imposed by the Court under O. XXI, rule 66 does not arise in a case coming under section 174 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

Following the decision in Faroquie's case it was con tended by counsel for the opposite‑parties that section 115 Civil Procedure Code applies only to those cases where the jurisdiction of a Court is brought into question. Therefore, if both the Munsif and the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to try the case rightly or wrongly and in doing so they wrongly came to a decision against the decree‑holder auction‑purchaser, a wrong decision by itself is no ground for interference by High Court.

Held, further that Faroquie's case did not decide that where the Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction thinking that law of limitation will not apply, the High Court cannot interfere under section 115, Civil Procedure Code. In a case, where a Court has refused to exercise , jurisdiction on an erroneous view of the law the High Court can always interfere under section 115, Civil Procedure Code and having regard to the circumstances of the above case the High Court bad jurisdiction to interfere in revision.

Dharani Nath Dutta for Petitioner.

Bhagirath Chandra Das for Opposite‑Parties.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.