Find a Lawyer

High Court Appeal No.179 of 1986, decided on 18th February, 1987.

---O.XXI, R.85--Execution of decree--Sale of property--Appellant's offer for purchase of property in dispute accepted by Court by consent of parties subject to deposit of entire amount of offered price--Not only that there was default in deposit of purchase amount, but also for four years appellant never caring to inquire from any one as to what had happened to his offer--Order accepting appellant's offer consequently recalled by Trial Court--Order of Trial Court recalling order accepting appellants offer, held, was rightly passed.

Hussain Adil Khatri for Appellant.

--This appeal challenges the order passed on 7-10-1986 by Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.50/1964 wherein he refused to recall the order made by Court on 15-11-1971. The property in dispute was to be sold in execution of the decree which had been obtained by respondent No.2. Appellant made an offer of Rs.8,50,000 for the purchase of the said property and the submissions of Mr. Hussain Adil is that the said offer was made through respondents Nos.1 & 2. The order accepting that offer was passed on 19-7-1971 in the following terms:-

"Offer of M/s. Ahmed Brothers in the sum of Rs.8,50,000 is approved by consent of the parties subject to the deposit of entire amount. The Nazir to complete the formalities of the sale accordingly."

The appellant says that he did not know of the acceptance of the offer. The said order of 19-7-1971 was recalled on 15-11-1971. The appellant had done nothing between 19-7-1971 and 15-11-1971 in respect of complying with the order made by the Court. Petitioner kept silent completely for four years till July, 1975 and it was in that month that he moved an application for recalling the order of 15-7-1971. However, that application was dismissed on 18-1-1971 as the counsel of the appellant had stated no instructions in the matter. Thereafter the appellant again moved for recalling the order of 15-11-1971, and the same was dismissed as mentioned earlier. The main contention of Mr. Hussain Adil is that appellant has been condemned unheard. We failed to see any force in the submissions of the learned counsel. The appellant has never cared to know about the acceptance of the offer made by him and did not pursue his offer. Even the acceptance of the offer was in the absence of the appellant and it was stated by Mr. Khatri, the act of respondents Nos.1 & 2 who had got the said offer accepted. However, what has impressed us is that there was condition accepted to the acceptance of the offer that the entire amount of Rs.8,50,000 was to be deposited. The reasonable consideration would be that the amount had to be deposited either forthwith as required under Rule 85 of Order XXI, or within reasonable time of the said order but no such deposit was made. Not only there was a default in the deposit, but also for four years the appellant never cared to inquire from any one as to what has happened to the offer made by him. If the appellant was serious about the offer of the purchasing of the property then he should have pursued the matter in reasonable manner and not allowed it to be pursued by those persons who, according to appellant's counsel, have defrauded him. It was not the duty of the court to send bailiff to the appellant to-inform him that his offer had been accepted by the Court and he was required to deposit the purchase price forthwith. We do not want to comment upon this attitude of the appellant in a harsh manner but it is enough to state that it was not an attitude of a person who was really and seriously interested in purchasing the property otherwise he would have himself kept touch of his offer. There is nothing wrong in the order which has been passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge and therefore this appeal is dismissed in limine. However, we will caution the trial Court that the observations made in this appeal may not be treated as affecting the merits of that case.

S.Q./A-161/K Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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