Case Note & Summary
The case originated from a money suit filed in 1955 by Hari Kishan Das (plaintiff) against M/s Diwan Kripa Ram Radha Kishan (defendant), resulting in a decree of Rs. 11,666.66. The decree was upheld by the District Judge and the Allahabad High Court. In execution proceedings, the defendant failed to deposit the full amount as per a consent order dated 08.10.1964, leading to auction of property purchased by the plaintiff's son. Objections were dismissed, and the matter reached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8398 of 2013, which was dismissed on 20.09.2013, noting that the decreetal amount was admittedly not paid. The defendant filed a review petition, contending that the entire amount had been paid and the decree satisfied, relying on an order dated 17.02.1971 of the District Judge, Saharanpur, which held that the amount deposited through bank drafts complied with the High Court's order. The plaintiff's appeal against that order was dismissed on 15.10.2001. The Supreme Court found that the factual error regarding non-payment materially altered the outcome, and thus recalled its earlier judgment, allowed the appeal, and set aside the sale order. Additionally, a contempt petition was filed alleging violation of interim orders restraining sale of property. The Court held that while the contemnors violated orders, since the property was no longer subject to sale, a lenient view was taken, and they were directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the decree holder within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Factual Error - Order XXI Rule 83 CPC, 1908 - Review petition allowed where the court had recorded that the entire decreetal amount was not paid, but subsequent material showed that the District Judge had held the decree satisfied - Held that the factual error materially altered the outcome, warranting recall of the judgment and setting aside the sale order (Paras 4-7). B) Contempt of Court - Violation of Interim Orders - Compensation - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Contemnors sold property in violation of interim orders restraining disposal - Held that since the property was no longer subject to sale, a lenient view was taken, and contemnors directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the decree holder (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment dated 20.09.2013 suffered from a factual error regarding non-payment of decreetal amount, warranting review; and whether contempt was committed by selling property in violation of interim orders.
Final Decision
Review petition allowed; judgment dated 20.09.2013 recalled; Civil Appeal No. 8398/2013 allowed; order of sale of property set aside. Contempt petition disposed; contemnors directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to plaintiff/decree holder within four weeks.
Law Points
- Review petition allowed on ground of factual error regarding non-payment of decreetal amount
- Contempt petition disposed with compensation for violation of interim orders
