L. MOOLCHAND AND ORS.versusFATIMA SULTANA BEGUM AND ORS.

                    L. MOOLCHAND AND ORS.                                        A
                              v.
                FATIMA SULTANA BEGUM AND ORS.

                           NOVEMBER 14, 1995

                  [M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]                               B

        Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

       S.151, 0. 21 R. 9f>-Court sale-Objections tcr-Maintainability
of-Held, interests of justice are primary consideration in deciding a petition   C
under S. 151-High Court rightly permitted trial court to examine the objec-
tions.

      The purchasers of the property sold in a sale conducted by receivers
appointed by Court in an administrative suit, filed the present appeal
against the order of the High Court directing the Trial Court to decide on       D
merits the application under S.151 CPC raising objections to the sale.

        Dismissing the appeal, this Court

      HELD : 1. In an administrative suit, the receivers appointed by the
Court to perform a function are agents of the Court and like a good              E
principal, the Court can put the receivers to accountability. To awaken the
role of the Court in that behalf, applications by the parties connected with
the suit, are perfectly in order to obviate any doubt entering in that regard
and to effect a sense of transparency so that no blame or aspersion is cast
on the Court for its having handled the matter in a particular way. The          F
Court's role is of a balancer. [230-F-G]

      2. Interests of justice are the primary consideration in granting or
not granting prayers in a petition under S. 151 CPC. No rule or procedure
can curtail that power of the Court. The High Court has rightly permitted
the Trial Court to examine the objections raised. [230-H; 231-A]                 G
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1081 of
1976.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.76 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Appeal against Order No. 15/74.                                    H
                                     229
    230                   SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1995]SUPP.5S.C.R.

A         B. Kanta Rao for the Appellants.

          A. Subba Rao for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

B          In an administrative suit, the parties had agreed for sale of a property
    at Ootacamund in the State of Tamil Nadu. The receivers appointed by the
    Court for the purpose sold the said property. The appellants herein are
    the purchasers thereof. Some of the parties to the suit raised objections to
    the sale purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 90 read with section 151
C   CPC. An objection was raised before the Trial Court that such objections
    were not maintainable. The Trial Court framed a preliminary issue and
    went into the matter. It rejected the application being not maintainable.
    The respondents herein took the matter in appeal to the High Court which
    was placed before a Division Bench for disposal. The High Court agreed
    with the Trial Court that an objection under Order 21, Rule 90 CPC to
D   such a sale did not lie. But, since the sale had been effected by the Court
    through its appointed receivers, the High Court viewed that the Court had
    full control and grip over the matter, empowering it to oversee whether the
    sale had been properly conducted and if there was any other objection
    thereto, what was the merit of the objection. This role of the Court was .
E   spelled out by the High Court to be within the domain of Section 151 CPC
    which recognises and preserves the inherent powers of the Civil Court. It
    is for that purpose that the High Court effected a remand to the Trial
    Court to go into the matter, J:iolding the application filed by the respon-
    dents maintainable. That view is in question before this Court.

F         After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are in total unison
    with the views expressed by the High Court. In an administrative suit, the
    receivers· appointed by the Court to perform (a) function are agents of the
    Court and like a good principal, the Court can put the receivers to
    accountability. To awaken the role of the Court in that behalf, applications
G   by the parties connected with the suit, are perfectly in order to obviate any
    doubt entering in that regard and to effect a sense of transparency so that
    no blame or aspersion is cast on the Court for its having handled the matter
    in a particular. way. The Court's role is of a balancer.

          It has also to be borne in mind that interests of justice are the
H primary consideration in granting or not granting prayers in a petition
                    L. MOOLCHAND v. F.S. BEGUM                         231

under Sec. 151 CPC. No rule or procedure can curtail that power of the        A
Court. The High Court rightly has pursued that path in permitting the Trial
Court to examine the objections raised, to promote the cause of justice.
We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in the said order.

      The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed, but without any
order as to costs.                                                            B
R.P.                                                    Appeal dismissed.