Case Note & Summary
The case arises from Inventory Proceedings No.102 of 1999 initiated upon the death of Krishna Mandrekar before the Panaji Court. Only one immovable property was listed as an asset. The Head of the family appointed by the Inventory Court applied for fixing a date for auction after valuation and description of assets were prepared. On 30/04/2009, the Inventory Court passed an order fixing the matter for auction. However, on the same day, it passed another order keeping the matter sine die because a suit between the parties was pending, directing that the inventory would be taken up only after the suit was disposed of. Subsequently, on 23/07/2010, the Head of the family applied to take the matter on board. Notices were issued and the matter was fixed for appearance. On 06/12/2012, an application was filed for fixing the date of auction. The Inventory Court allowed the application and fixed the auction date. The respondents appealed to the First Appellate Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the order fixing the auction date, holding that the Inventory Court should not proceed with auction until the civil suit is disposed of. The petitioners challenged this appellate order in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no error in the appellate order and noting that the Inventory Court had itself kept the matter sine die due to the pending suit. The court held that the First Appellate Court's order was just and proper and did not warrant interference.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Inventory Proceedings - Auction of Property - Pending Civil Suit - The Inventory Court had initially fixed a date for auction but subsequently kept the matter sine die due to a pending suit between the parties. The First Appellate Court set aside the order fixing the auction date, holding that the Inventory Court should not proceed with auction until the civil suit is disposed of. The High Court upheld the appellate order, finding no perversity or illegality. (Paras 3-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the First Appellate Court allowing the appeal and rejecting the order of the Inventory Court for fixing the date of auction needs interference.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the First Appellate Court's order and finding no interference required.
Law Points
- Inventory proceedings
- auction of property
- pending civil suit
- sine die order
- first appellate court's jurisdiction
- interference with discretionary order
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 257
WRIT PETITION NO.705 OF 2015
Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias with Mr. Vishal Sawant and Mr. Shane Coutinho for Petitioners; Mr. M.B. D’Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rehan Abbasi for Respondents
Shri Vaman Krishna Mandrekar (through legal heirs) and others
Shri Satchit Krishna Manderkar and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the First Appellate Court in inventory proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the First Appellate Court's order and restore the Inventory Court's order fixing the date of auction.
Filing Reason
The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Inventory Court's order fixing the date of auction, holding that auction should not proceed until the pending civil suit is disposed of.
Previous Decisions
Inventory Court initially fixed auction date on 30/04/2009 but then kept matter sine die due to pending suit. Later, on application, it fixed auction date again. First Appellate Court set aside that order.
Issues
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in setting aside the Inventory Court's order fixing the date of auction.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the discretionary order of the First Appellate Court.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Inventory Court had correctly fixed the auction date after valuation and description of assets were prepared.
Respondents contended that the Inventory Court had itself kept the matter sine die due to the pending civil suit and should not have proceeded with auction.
Ratio Decidendi
The First Appellate Court's order was just and proper; the Inventory Court had itself kept the matter sine die due to the pending civil suit, and the appellate court correctly held that auction should not proceed until the suit is disposed of.
Judgment Excerpts
A limited question is raised in the present petition as to whether the order passed by the First Appellate Court in allowing the appeal and rejecting the order of the Inventory Court for fixing the date of auction, needs interference.
The First Appellate Court's order is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
Procedural History
Inventory Proceedings No.102 of 1999 were instituted upon death of Krishna Mandrekar. On 30/04/2009, Inventory Court fixed auction but then kept matter sine die due to pending suit. On 23/07/2010, Head of family applied to take matter on board. On 06/12/2012, application for fixing auction date was allowed by Inventory Court. Respondents appealed to First Appellate Court, which allowed appeal and set aside order fixing auction date. Petitioners filed writ petition in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
