AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD.versusMRS. NISCHINT BHALLA & ORS.

                        [2015] 11 S.C.R. 556


A               AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD.
                                  v.
                 MRS. NISCHINT BHALLA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No.8397 of 2015)
B
                        OCTOBER 08, 2015
           [RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
           Suit-Administration of estate of deceased - Notice of
c   motion in suit - On facts, Notice of motion taken by
    defendants nos. 4A, 4B and 5 in the suit for enforcement
    and implementation of certain orders passed by the Court
    on consent of the parties to the suit - Order passed by High
    Court giving directions for confirmation of.the sale and
D   execution of the conveyance deed etc., of the immovable
    properly in favour of the present appellant- However; before
    the Division Bench, the Defendant Nos. 4A, 4B and 5 sought
    withdrawal of the Notice of Motion filed by them in the suit-
    Division Bench permitted withdrawal of the Notice of Motion
E   at the instance of the said defendants and held that the order
    of the Single Judge does not survive for consideration
    rendering the appeal infructuous - On appeal, held: In the
    Order; the Single Judge while allowing the Notice of Motion
    had held that the highest offer made by the appellant stood
F   accepted by all the parties to the suit and thereafter passed
    certain directions- Thus, a vested right was created in favour
    of the appellant and that cannot be set at naught simply by
    permitting the defendants to withdraw the Notice of Motion
    filed by them - Division Bench was to decide the appeal on
G   merits instead of permitting the withdrawal of the Notice of
    Motion and observing that the order of the Single Judge
    passed on that Motion does not survive for consideration -
    Order passed by the High Court not sustainable and is set
H   aside.
                                556
AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD. v. NISCHINT BHALLA                  557


     R. Rathinave/ Chettiar and Another vs. V Sivaraman A
and Others 1999 (2) SCR 313: (1999) 4 SCC 89; Sneh Gupta
vs. Devi Sarup and Others 2009 (2) SCR 553:(2009) 6 SCC
194; Janatha Textiles and Others vs. Tax Recovery Officer
and Another 2008 (8) SCR 1148: (2008) 12 SCC 582 -
referred to.                                              B

                     Case Law Reference

1999 (2) SCR 313                 referred to.    Para 8

2009 (2) SCR 553                 referred to.    Para 8         c
2008 (8) SCR 1148                referred to.    Para 8

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
8397 of 2015                                                    D

     From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2012 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 271 of 2009
in Notice of Motion No. 21 of 2006 in Suit No. 3706of1995

    C. A. Sundaram, Ramji Srinivasan, Pratyush Panjwani,        E
Mahesh Agarwal, Shashank Manish, Vivek Jain, E. C.
Agarwala for the Appellant.

     Vijay Hansaria, Aslam Ahmed, Puneet Singh Bindra,
Dhiraj Mehta, Gagan Gupta, Vikas Mehta, Rajat Sehgal for        F
the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     R.K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                G
     2. The present appeal has been filed against the
judgment and order dated ·o 1. 03.2012 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Bomoay in Appeal No. 271 of 2009
in Notice of Motion No. 21 of 2006 in Suit No. 3706 of 1995.
                                                                H
558         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2015] 11 S.C.R.


A     Before the High Court, an appeal was filed against the order
      dated 10.02.2009 passed by the learned single Judge of the
      High Court on a Notice of Motion taken by Defendant Nos.
      4A, 48 and 5 respectively in the aforementioned suit for
      enforcement and implementation of certain orders passed by
B     the Court on consent of the parties to the suit.

         3. However, before the Division Bench, the original
  Defendant Nos. 4A, 4B and 5 sought withdrawal of the Notice
  of Motion No. 21 of 2006 filed by them in the Suit No. 3706 of
C 1995. The Division Bench of the High Court opined that as
  the Notice of Motion taken out by Defendant Nos. 4A, 4B and
  5 seeking interim reliefs and now they seek withdrawal of that
  motion, they cannot be prevented from withdrawing the same
  with the liberty to seek appropriate relief to which they may be
D entitled in the changed circumstances. It had further held that
  as a result of the withdrawal of the motion, the order of the
  learned single Judge passed on the motion dated 10.02.2009
  does not survive for consideration rendering this appeal
  infructuous.
E
         4. Brief facts:

           (a) One Smt Durga Devi Hitkari was owner of various
           properties at Mumbai. She died in the year 1991. It
F          appears that there was some dispute between her heirs
           regarding t~e estate left by her. The plaintiffs therein filed
           the present -suit for administration of estate of the
           deceased. The Notice of Motion being No. 3441 of 1995
           in the suit was taken by the plaintiffs therein praying for
G          appointment of a receiver on the properties left by Late
           Smt Durga Devi and for temporary Injunction restraining
           the defendants therein from· disposing or selling or
           creating any third party rights or interest in the property.

H          (b)Alearned single Judge of the High Court, vide order
AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD. v. NISCHINT BHALLA                 559
             [R.K.AGRAWAL, J.]

   dated 04.08.1998 disposed of the Notice of Motion by A
   restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from
   creating any third party interest in or encumbering or
   selling or transferring or alienating in any manner
   whatsoever the immovable properties bearing Survey No.
   97 ofMandavi Division, admeasuring 202 sq. yards, Plot B
   No. 66 at Chembur, Ghatkopar, Mahul Road,
   admeasuring 502 sq. yards and ground 1st, 5th and 7th
   floor of Sky Lark Building known as Hitkari House along
   with certain other directions.
                                                               c
   (c) On 01.12.1999, the said Award was made rule of the
   court by the High Court and a decree in terms of the said
   Award was passed in Arbitration Petition No. 148 of
   1997.
                                                               D
   (d) Being aggrieved, defendants therein moved this Court
   by filing special leave petition being No. 9168 of 2000.
   Before this Court, learned counsel for the parties filed
   consent terms of compromise duly signed by the parties.
   Vide order dated 11.12 .2000, the special leave petition    E
   got disposed of in terms ·of the consent terms dated
   11.12.2000. However, the said order was passed
   without prejudice to the parties to move the High Court
   of Bombay for probate proceedings. The High Court,
   vide order dated 15.04.2004, disposed of the Notice of      F
   Motion No. 2998 of 2001 filed in Suit No. 3706 of 1995
   in terms of the minutes of the order.

   (e) In the minutes, the earlier order of the learned single
   Judge dated 04.08.1998 restraining the defendants from G
   transferring immovable property situated at Chembur
   was modified and Defer)dant Nos. 1, 4 and 6 were
   permitted to take all necessary steps to sell the said
   property on the terms and conditions mentioned in the
   minutes.                                                    H
560       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A         (f) Bids were invited for the sale of the property at
          Chembur and the appellant herein gave bid of Rs.
          20, 15,00,000/- which was found to be highest and
          accepted by the parties also. No challenge was made
          to the sale contemplated under the provisions of the
 B        Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code'). As
          there was delay in execution of the agreement, Defendant
          Nos. 4A, 48 and 5 made an application by way of Notice
          of Motion being No. 21 of 2006 to the court for completion
          and confirmation of the sale process. The learned single
c         Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 10.02.2009
          confirmed the sale process and directed execution of
          the documents in favour of the appellant.

          (g) The original Defendant Nos. 2, 6 and 7 challenged
D         the order dated 10.02.2009 by way of Letters Patent
          Appeal being No. 271 of 2009 before the Division Bench
          of the High Court. The original Defendant Nos. 4A, 48
          and 5 did not challenge the order dated 10.02.2009.

E         (h) At the appellate stage, original Defendant Nos. 4A,
          48 and 5 made an oral application for withdrawal of the
          notice of motion filed by them. The Division Bench of
          the High Court, vide order dated 01.03.2012, allowed
          the withdrawal of the Motion while holding that the order
 F        of the learned single Judge dated 10.02.2009 does not
          survive for consideration rendering the appeal
          infructuous. Against the said order, the appellant has
          preferred this appeal by way of special leave.

G         5. Heard learned senior counsel for the parties.

          Rival submissions:

         6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted
 H that when the rights of the parties had been crystallized and
 AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD. v. NISCHINT BHALLA                         561
              [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]

findings have been rendered in favour of the appellant herein A
and against the respondents and the same have been
confirmed, the Division Bench of the High Court, without
considering the effect thereon on the rights already accrued to
the parties, could not have permitted withdrawal of the Notice
of Motion at the instance of the original Defendant Nos. 4A, B
4B and 5. In the alternative, it is submitted that even if the
Division Bench could have allowed withdrawal of the original
application, it had no occasion or cause to observe that on
withdrawal of the original application, the order of the learned
single Judge dated 10.02.2009 could not survive for C
consideration which in effect amounts to allowing the appeal
without making any comments on the merits or otherwise on
the order dated 10.02.2009.

      7. He further submitted that the Division Bench was not D
justified in granting liberty to the parties to the suit to apply for
appointment of receiver in respect of subject property for sale
thereon as the sale in favour of the appellant herein had been
in.execution of the First and the Second decree which can
only be set aside on an appropriate application being made              E
                 L
in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI of the Code
anc;:I not otherwise. Even if the suit was to be withdrawn that
would not lead to setting aside of the sale in favour of the
appellant herein unless recourse to appropriate proceedings             F
in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI of the Code is
made.

      8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant relied upon
the following decisions in support of his contention viz., R.
. Rathinave/ Chettiar and Another vs. \I. Sivaraman and G
  Others (1999) 4 SCC 89, Sneh Gupta vs. Devi Sarup and
  Others (2009) 6 SCC 194 and Janatha Textiles and Others
  vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Another (2008) 12 SCC 582.

      9. Learned senior counsel for the respondents, however,           H
562         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A     submitted that as the order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the
      learned single Judge was on a Notice of Motion filed by
      Defendant Nos. 4A, 4B·and 5, it was always open for the said
      defendants to withdraw the Notice of Motion in the appeal itself
      and once the court has permitted the withdrawal of Notice of
B     Motion, the order, if any, passed on the said Notice of Motion,
      does not survive.

           Discussion:

c        10. We have given our anxious consideration to the
  various pleas raised by learned senior counsel for the parties.
  It is not in dispute that vide order dated 04.08.1998 in
  Administration Suit No. 3706of1995, the learned single Judge
  had restrained the defendants, their agents and servants therein
D from creating any third party interest in or encumbering or selfing
  or transferring or alienating in any manner whatsoever amongst
  other properties the immovable property situated at Chembur,
  Ghatkoper, Mahul Roaq bearing Plot No. 66 admeasuring 502
  sq. yards also. When the matter was taken up by way of speciql
E leave petition being No. 9168 of 2000 before this Court, the
  parties had signed the consent terms and vide order dated
  11.12.2000, this Court had disposed of the special leave
  petition in terms of the consent terms dated 11.12.2000.
  However, the said order was passed without prejudice to the
F parties to move the High Court for probate proceedings.

         11. The learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order
  dated 15.04.2004, had taken on record the minutes of the
  order and the Notice of Motion was disposed of in terms of
G the minutes of the order. In the minutes of the order, the order
  of injunction in respect of immovable property at Chemburwas
  varied to the limited extent so as to enable Defendant Nos. 1,
  4 gnd 6 to take all necessary steps to sell the said property on
  the terms and conditions mentioned in the minutes. It is not
H necessary to reproduce the minutes of the order. Suffice it to
AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD. v. NISCHINT BHALLA                   563
             [R.K.AGRAWAL, J.]

mention that in terms of the minutes, the appellant herein A
submitted its bid of Rs. 20, 15,00,000/- which was found to be
the highest and was accepted by the parties. In the Notice of
Motion being No. 21 of 2006 filed by Defendant Nos. 4A, 4B
and 5, the learned single Judge, vide order dated 10.02.2009,
had held that the offer made by the respondent therein who is B
the appellant before us stood accepted by all the parties to
the suit. While allowing the Notice of Motion, the learned single
Judge gave certain directions in the operative part of the order
dated 10.02.2009. For ready reference, the directions given
in the order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the learned single C
Judge are reproduced below:-

                              "Order

     (1) The respondents shall deposit a sum of Rs.              D
     2,28, 15000/-with the Prothonotary & Senior Master, High
     Court, Bombay within one week from the date of signature
     on the detail order, who should forthwith invest the said
     amount in any nationalized Bank as fixed deposit.
                                                                 E
     (2) The Advocate for the defendant Nos. 4A, 4B and 5
     shall return the Pay Order dated 5-8-2005 for the amount
     of R.2,28, 15,000/- back to the respondents against the
     aforesaid deposit to be made by the respondents for
     cancellation of the same.                                   F

     (3) Within one week therefrom, the defendant Nos. 2,
     4A, 4B, 5 and 6 shall handover the original title deeds of
     the Chembur property to the Prothonotary and Senior
     Master, who shall keep the same in safe custody. Within G
     one week therefrom, the Court Receiver shall take formal
     possession of the Chembur property and get it vacated
     from the defendants and any party claiming through them.
     The Receiver shall then intimate to the respondents about
     the vacant possession being available and within one H
564    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A     week therefrom the respondents shall deposit the
      remaining consideration of Rs. 17 ,86,85,000/-with the
      court receiver High Court, Bombay. In case the amount
      is not deposited within one week as directed, then the
      deposit amount of Rs. 2,28, 15,000/- shall stand forfeited
 B    and shall be handed over to the credit of the suit.

        (4) In case the amount is deposited as directed above,
        the defendant Nos. 2, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6 and Shri Sanjay
        Sawhney (the heir of the defendant No. 8) shall execute
c       register and duly admit the execution before the Sub-
      . Registrar of an irrevocable Power of Attorney in the
        format annexed at Extiibit-12 to the affidavit in reply of
        the respondents ·dated 18-10-2007, at the cost and
        expenses of the respondents. The Court Receiver shall
D       then handover the possession of the Chembur property
        to the respondents and shall also handover the origin~I
        title deeds and thereafter the Prothonotary & Senior
        Master shall handover the original title deeds to the
        respondents.
 E
      (5) In case the defendants above-mentioned fail to
      execute the Power of Attorney, as aforesaid, then the
      Court Receiver shall execute the same an9 register it at
      the costs and expenses of the respondents and further if
 F    the respondents want, they shall also execute the deed
      of conveyance at the cqsts of the respondents.

      (6) The respondents to indemnify and keep indemnified
      the defendants against all actions, demands, claims,
G     costs, charges and expenses by reason of any claim on
      account of any act or omission of the Attorneys under the
      Power of Attorney to be executed in their favour.

      (7) After the completion of the aforesaid sale in favour of
 H    the respondents, the parties shall be entitled to
AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD. v. NISCHINT BHALLA                   565
             [R.K.AGRAWAL, J.]

     distribution of the amount and any one of them may apply     A
     to the Court for distribution of the same in terms of the
     order of the Supreme Court dated 11-12-2000 and the
     order of this Court dated 15-4-2004.

     (8) The respondents shall pay to the Court Receiver the B
     costs, charges and expenses of the Receiver to be
     worked out on the basis of actuals incurred and estimated
     by the Court Receiver and not on the basis of
     commission and the Court Receiver shall stand
     discharged without any further order of this Court.       C

     (9) In case of any difficulty, liberty to the party to approach
     the Court. At this stage, the learned senior counsel
     appearing for the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 makes oral
     request for stay of operation of this order for a period of D
     six weeks. Request granted. The effect and operation of
     this order is stayed for a period of six weeks from the
     date of signature on the detail order".

      12. From a reading of the directions given by the learned E
single Judge in the operative portion of the order dated
10.02.2009 reproduced above, we find that the learned single
Judge had directed the appellant herein who was the
respondent before learned single Judge to deposit a sum of
Rs. 2,28, 15,000/-with the Prothonotary & Senior Master, High F
Court of Bombay within one week and the advocate for the
Defendant Nos. 4A, 48 and 5 was directed to return the pay
order dated 05.08.2005 for the amount of Rs. 2,28, 15,000/-
back to the respondents therein against the aforesaid deposit.
The Defendant Nos. 2, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6 were further directed G
to handover the original title dee9s of Chem bur property to the
Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court of Bombay to be
kept in safe custody and· the court ~eceiver to take formal
possession of the Chembur property within one week and get
it vacated from the defendants therein and any party claiming H
566       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A through them. After intimation to the respondents about the
  vacant possession being available, the respondent (appellant
  herein), was required to deposit the remaining consideration
  of Rs. 17,86,85,000/- with the court receiver. In case the
  amount is not deposited within one week as directed, the
8 deposit of Rs. 2,28, 15,000/- would stand forfeited and was to
  be handed over to the credit of the suit. It was further directed
  that in case the amount is deposited as directed, the Defendant
  Nos. 2, 4A, 48, 5 and 6 and heir of Defendant No. 8 shall allow
  the execution of an irrevocable Power of Attorney in the
C prescribed format before the sub-Registrar. The court receiver
  was then directed to hand over the possession of the Chembur
  property to the respondent and was also directed to handover
  the original title deeds to the respondent. The conveyance
D deed was also directed to be executed at the cost of the
  respondent.

        13. The order dated 10.02.2009, in fact, gave certain
  directions regarding the sale of the immovable property at
  Chembur in favour of the respondent therein who is the
E appellant before us. The order dated 10.02.2009 was brought
  up in appeal by some of the defendants. Those defendants,
  who were appellants in Appeal No. 271 of 2009, had not sought
  for any withdrawal of appeal. The question is as to whether
F Defendant Nos. 4A, 48 and 5, on whose Notice of Motion No.
  21 of 2006, the order dated 10.02.2009 has been passed
  giving directions for confirmation of the sale and execution of
  the conveyance deed etc., of the immovable property at
  Chembur in favour of the present appellant, can be permitted
G to withdraw and the order dated 10.02.2009 can be said to be
  not surviving for consideration.

         14. In the case of R. Rathnive/ (supra), this Court has
  considered the questien as to whether at a stage where the
H rights of the parties are crystallized can be divested of the rights
AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD. v. NISCHINT BHALLA                        567
             [R.K.AGRAWAL, J.]

under the decree simply because of withdrawal of the suit at A
the appellate stage or not. This Court has held as follows:-

      " 12. What is essential is that the matter must have been
     finally decided so that it becomes conclusive as between
     the parties to the suit in respect of the subject-matter of B
     the suit with reference to which relief is sought. It is at
     this stage that the rights of the parties are crystallised
     and unless the decree is reversed, recalled, modified or
     set aside, the parties cannot be divested of their rights
     under the decree. Now, the decree can be recalled, C ·
     reversed or set aside either by the court which had
     passed it as in ·review, or by the appellate or revisional
     court. Since withdrawal of suit at the appellate stage, if
     allowed, would have the effect of destroying or nullifying
     the decree affecting thereby rights of the parties which D
     came to be vested under the decree,. it cannot be allowed
     as a matter of course b_ut has to be allowed rarely only
     when a strong case is made out. It is for this reason that
     the proceedings either in appeal or in revision have to
     be allowed to have a full trial on merits."                 E

     This Court after referring to the various decisions of the
High Courts have come to the conclusion that where a decree
passed by the trial Court is challenged in appeal, it would not
be open to the plaintiff, at that stage, to withdraw the suit so as   F
to destroy that decree. In para 22, this court held as under:-

      "22. In view of the above discussion, it comes-out that
      where a decree passed by the trial court is challenged in
      appeal, it would not be open to the plaintiff, at that stage, G
      to withdraw the suit so as to destroy that decree. The
      rights which have come to be vested in the parties to the
      suit under the decree cannot be taken away by withdrawal
      of the suit at that stage unless very strong reasons are
      shown that the withdrawal would not affect or prejudice H
568         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A           anybody's vested rights. The impugned judgment of the
            High Court in which a contrary view has been expressed
            cannot be sustained."

              15. In Janatha Textiles (supra), this Court has held that
B     it is an established principle of law that in a third party auction-
      purchaser's interest in the auctioned property continues to be
      protected notwithstanding that the underlying decree is
      subsequently set aside or otherwise.

c            16. In Sneh Gupta (supra), this Court has held that a
      right to withdraw a suit in the suitor would be unqualified, if no
      right has been vested in any other party. · •

            Conclusion:

D       17. Applying the principles given in the aforementioned
  decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that in the
  order dated 10.02.2009, the learned single Judge while
  allowing the Notice of Motion No. 21 of 2006 had held that the
  highest offer made by the respondent therein (appellant before
E us) stood accepted by all the parties to the suit and thereafter
  passed certain directions to deposit the bid amount, execution
  of the conveyance deed etc. Thus a vested right has been
  created in favour of the respondent therein, that is, the present
F appellant and that cannot be set at naught simply by permitting
  the Defendant Nos. 4A, 4B and 5 to withdraw the Notice of
  Motion filed by them. It was for the Division Bench to decide
  the appeal on merits instead of permitting the withdrawal of
  the Notice of Motion and observing that the order of the learned
G single Judge pas-;ed on that Motion dated 10.02.2009 does
  not survive for consideration ..

           18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order dated
      01.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Bombay under appeal
H     cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The High Court
AVENUE SUPERMARTS PVT. LTD. v. NISCHINT BHALLA              569
             [R.K.AGRAWAL, J.]

is directed to decide the appeal afresi'l on merits in      A
accordance with law. The appeal is hereby alluwed.

Nidhi Jain                                Appeal ailowed.




                             '·--,