S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.159/1999 Gulab Bai & ors. Vs. Suraj Kumari and ors. Dated : 02.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. RK Agarwal, for the appellants. Mr. Suresh Goyal, for the respondents. *** Challenge in this misc. appeal is to the order dated 5th November, 1998 whereby the learned District Judge, Kota directed the respondents-applicants mortgagor to deposit the amount of Rs.70,000/- in the Court within a period of two months. 2. Skipping the unnecessary details, the facts of the case, in nub, are that an application under Section 7 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 came to be filed by Sri Ram Pratap, since deceased, against Kailash Chand, in the year 1971 alleging that said Kailash Chand owed Rs.2,000/- towards him which he failed to pay despite reiterated demands. Kailash Chand was declared insolvent by the order dated 4th March, 1972 passed by District Judge, Kota. It was notified in the official gazette along with the news-paper publication. Kailash Chand was granted five months time to make the payment. Finally, court receiver was appointed and his property was directed to be put to auction sale. M/s Nolilal Ramjeevan Saraf mortgagee was the highest bidder in the auction -2- sale and the bid was finally accepted in his favour. The Court directed to adjust mortgage money of Rs.70,000/- and the auction purchaser M/s Nolilal Ramjeevan Saraf deposited the remaining amount of Rs.6,500/- and thus the sale was complete. Thereafter Suraj Kumari and others filed a suit No.12/1975 against Kailash Chand and ors. which stood dismissed on 15th July, 1978. Suraj Kumari preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15th July, 1978 which also stood dismissed by the High Court on 28/2/1985. Ramjeevan purchaser, then, made an application for delivery of possession of the said property. On 4th August, 1987, the debtor Kailash Chand made an application purportedly under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act imploring the court to allow him to deposit the amount of Rs.70,000/- for exercising the purported right of redemption in respect of the suit property. The appellants filed the reply to the said application but the learned District Judge, allowed the respondents to deposit the amount of Rs.70,000/-, whereas the provisions of Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act were not at all attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel stated the impugned order to be wholly erroneous, suffering from inherent flaws. -3- 3. Learned counsel for the appellants opened this case. At the very outset the Court queried from the learned counsel for the appellants, when the impugned order apparently seemed to be an interlocutory order, how the appeal was maintainable against the said order? 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants intended not to press the appeal, but learned counsel for both the parties jointly beseeched that the learned District Judge, Kota may be directed to adjudicate the application as also the objections filed by the appellants within a time frame as the same have been pending for the last more than two decades. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-applicants submitted that he should be granted liberty to file the reply of the objections raised by the appellants before the lower Court. Learned District Judge may grant the permission. 6. In view of above, learned counsel for the appellants does not press the appeal, hence, the same stands dismissed as not pressed. 7. However, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the application of the respondents-applicants as also the objections filed by the appellants -non- -4- applicants within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the record. The directions be complied with in letter and spirit and the compliance thereof be reported back to this Court. 8. Record of the lower court be sent back forthwith. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg