2008 (9) TMI 998 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale of the property under attachment.
2. Bona fide purchaser status of the petitioner.
3. Application of legal provisions under Order 21 Rule 58 and Rule 58-A CPC.
4. Stay of execution proceedings.

Summary:

1. Validity of the sale of the property under attachment:
The first respondent filed O.S.No.346 of 1992 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,36,000/-, and the suit was decreed on 25.09.1996. An order of attachment before judgment was obtained for the property in D.No.15, Kothukkaranpudur, Suriyanpalayam. The petitioner purchased the property on 15.04.2004, subsequent to the attachment order dated 25.07.2000. The first respondent contended that the sale transactions were entered into to defraud his claim in the suit.

2. Bona fide purchaser status of the petitioner:
The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide purchaser who verified the Encumbrance Certificate for 18 years before purchasing the property. The first respondent argued that the petitioner colluded with the judgment debtor to deny the decree holder the fruits of the decree. The court noted that mere presumption of collusion is insufficient without sufficient evidence on record.

3. Application of legal provisions under Order 21 Rule 58 and Rule 58-A CPC:
The court referred to Rule 58 and Rule 58-A under Order 21 CPC, which mandates adjudication of claims or objections to attachment of property and communication of attachment orders to the Registering Officer. The court observed that the lower court did not consider these provisions and the Encumbrance Certificate while rejecting the petitioner's stay application.

4. Stay of execution proceedings:
The petitioner filed E.A.No.243 of 2008 for stay of execution proceedings, which was opposed by the first respondent. The court emphasized that till a dispute is finally adjudicated, stay of further proceedings in the Execution Petition is necessary if the claim petition is filed by a bona fide person. The court set aside the lower court's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the court below to dispose of the matter within eight weeks.

Conclusion:
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration. The lower court is directed to take into account the evidence from both parties and dispose of the matter within eight weeks. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.