{"id":8650,"date":"2008-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008"},"modified":"2017-05-07T02:55:55","modified_gmt":"2017-05-06T21:25:55","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: U Maheshwari<\/div>\n
Bench: U Maheshwari<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
U.C. Maheshwari, J.<\/p>\n
1. This appeal is directed on behalf of the Objector State of  Madhya Pradesh under Section 96 of CPC being aggrieved by the  order dated 25.11.2005 passed in Execution Case No. 562\/05 by 4th  Additional District Judge, Bhopal dismissing its application filed  under Order 21 Rule 58 and 59 r\/w Section 151 of CPC.\n<\/p>\n
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the  respondent No. 1 being Non-Banking Finance Company had financed  the acquisition of 99 buses to respondent No. 2 on higher purchase  with lease agreement. According to terms the respondent No. 2 had to  make the payment of such sum as per agreed schedule but inspite  making various demands the same was not paid. On which as per  terms respondent No. 1 referred the dispute to Arbitrator for its  adjudication. After holding such proceedings the claim of the  respondent No. 1 was awarded on 23.5.2003 for the sum of  Rs.4,26,11,623\/-up to the period of 30th June 2002 and also awarded  the interest on such sum @ 9% p.a. from 1.7.2002, till it’s realization.  Besides this the direction for handing over such buses was also given.  Apart this the cost of arbitration proceeding Rs.85,000\/-was also  awarded. Subsequent to such award when the payment was not made  by the respondent No. 2 then respondent No. 1 initiated its Execution  proceedings, in which some immovable properties of Bhopal were  attached on 12.1.2005 and while the same was being placed for  auction. On such occasion the official of the appellant, appeared on  14.2.2005 and took time to file its objections against attachment of  such property and the same were filed on 13.10.2005 under Order 21 Rule  58 and 59 r\/w Section 151 of CPC contending that plots of such  buildings are the properties of the appellant, and the same were never  given to the respondent No. 2 either under ownership or on lease. The  same was given to it only for opening its office to manage and  operation of its commercial activities. The impugned award had  passed without impleading the appellant as party in such arbitration  proceedings. Thus the same is not binding against it. In such  premises the aforesaid property of the appellant could neither be  attached nor placed on auction under the execution of such award.  Besides this such attachment is also objected on the ground of  outstanding balance of road tax Rs.29,79,73,853\/-i.e. more than  Rs.29 crores against the respondent No. 2 regarding operation of its  buses in the State including the aforesaid 99 buses. Such recovery is  to be made as arrears of land revenue from the properties of of the  respondent No. 2 as first charge and in order to recover the same some  properties of respondent No. 2 have already been attached under such  proceedings. In addition to it, it is pleaded that proceeding for  winding up the respondent No. 2 is also going on. Therefore, the  respondent No. 1 had a right to recover the alleged sum along with the  other creditors of respondent No. 2 only in the ratio which would be  decided by the concerned official of winding up proceedings out of  the available fund after satisfying the first chare over the property.  With these averments the prayer for staying the auction proceedings  of the aforesaid properties is made.\n<\/p>\n
3. In reply of respondent No. 1, the averments of the objections  are denied. In addition to it, it is pleaded that as per notification  published by the Central Government on re-organization of State of  Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh the appellant owned the assets and  liabilities of respondent No. 2 till some extent, therefore, firstly in  such premises and secondly the respondent No. 2 being the  constituted corporation and enterprises of the appellant, the appellant  is bound to indemnify and satisfy the impugned award. It is also  stated that the alleged land of the aforesaid building were transferred  by the appellant to respondent No. 2 under the ownership in 1964, and  subsequent to such transfer the respondent No. 2 enjoyed and dealt  with as its own properties; the same was never objected by the  appellant. Therefore, the appellant is precluded to claim such  property as owner against the right of respondent No. 2. It is also  stated that aforesaid property by staying the auction proceedings  cannot be released from the attachment on the ground of alleged  outstanding balance of the road tax. The papers relating to  attachment of the property and road tax are prepared by the appellant,  subsequent to execution proceedings with intention to defeat the  claim and recovery of the respondent No. 1. With these averments the  prayer for dismissal of the objection is made.\n<\/p>\n
4. On consideration by dismissing the appellant’s objection  the aforesaid attached properties have been placed on auction. Being  dissatisfied with this order the appellant State has come forward with  this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5. Shri P. N. Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General assailed  the impugned order firstly saying that executing court ought to have  adjudicated its objection filed under Ordrer 21 Rule 58 and 59 of CPC after  holding inquiry by extending the opportunity to the parties for  adducing the evidence in support of their respective case, because the  various documents placed by the parties could not be considered  without proving the same by examining the concerning witnesses.  He further said that Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC gives the mandate to the  Executing Court to adjudicate such objections by holding the trial in a  manner in which the trial of suit is held. Such objections could not be  disposed of without recording the evidence. By elaborating his  argument he said that undisputedly, and admittedly the appellant was  not impleaded as party in the arbitration proceedings. Thus, the  award under Execution is not binding against it. So for letter dated  7.10.1964 issued by General Administration Department, State of  Madhya Pradesh for allotment of three plots to the respondent No. 2 is  concerned, he said that firstly this document could not be considered  as admissible document unless the same is proved by adducing the  evidence as the same is not a public document. Secondly, on the  basis of this letter it could not be inferred that the mentioned plots  were given to respondent No. 2 under the ownership or lease. Unless  the validly executed documents in this regard are proved on record,  no inference could be drawn that such property was transferred to  respondent No. 2 under its ownership. He also said that respondent  No. 2 had its own identity and not related with the State regarding its  function and commercial activities, therefore, the award passed  against respondent No. 2 without impleading the appellant as party  could not be executed against it. He also relied on the settled  principle of law based on natural justice and said that a person\/party  should not be unheard before passing any order against him. He  further said that appellant has to recover more than twenty nine crores  rupees from the respondent No. 2 as arrears of road tax arising out of  the operation of its buses including the aforesaid 99 buses in the  State. The same is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue for  which the proceeding is going on. He also referred some documents  in this regard from the record and said that in comparison of other  debts in view of the provision of Section 137 of the M. P. Land  Revenue Code and as per provision of Motoryan Karadhan  Adhiniyam aforesaid arrears of tax is the first charge over the  property of respondent No. 2. He also placed his reliance on some  reported cases of the Apex Court and the High Courts.\n<\/p>\n
6. Responding the aforesaid argument Shri Brain D’silva,  learned senior Advocate assisted by Shri V. Bhide justified the  impugned order and said that the Executing court has not committed  any error in passing the same as the objection filed by the appellant  neither covered nor entertainable under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC.  He further said that on earlier point of time some sale deeds were  executed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in favour of some developers  stating that property belonging to it, on such occasion the same was  not objected by the appellant. Thus, in view of such conduct of the  appellant, it could not be said that after transferring the aforesaid land  in 1964 to respondent No. 2 it was remained it’s properties. In such  premises the appellant is stopped to challenge the same. Besides this  there is no evidence on record to hold the properties under attachment  are belonging to the State and not to respondent No. 2. It was also  argued that as per notification of the Central Government dated  27.12.2002 the appellant consented to receive the assets and liabilities  regarding loan and advance etc of the respondent No. 2 till some  extent on reorganization of State of Madhya Pradesh and  Chhatisgarh. Hence, he did not have any authority to raise the  objection against the auction of the aforesaid properties. Besides this  it was also argued that respondent No. 2 being constituted corporation  of the appellant, it is liable to indemnify and satisfy the award under  Execution. Under such premises it was not necessary for the  respondent No. 1 to implead the State of Madhya Pradesh as party in  the Arbitration proceeding. It was also argued that aforesaid land  was transferred to respondent No. 2 under Government Grant Act  1985 for which the registration of any document by virtue of Section  90 of the Registration Act was not required and provision of 107 of  Transfer of Property Act was also not applicable. In the aforesaid  circumstances the trial court was not bound to hold any inquiry by  extending the opportunity to the parties for adducing the evidence as  the documents filed by the parties were not disputed between them  and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. He also placed his reliance  on some reported decisions.\n<\/p>\n
7. Having heard the Learned Counsel, after examining the  papers placed by the parties on record and perusing the impugned  order, I am of the considered view that executing court has  committed error in dismissed the appellant’s objections because of  the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
8. As per impugned order the objection of the appellant has  been dismissed only on the ground that appellant has failed to prove  its title over the attached properties. Firstly such finding has not been  given by speaking order and considering all the material and papers  placed by the parties on record. Secondly before dismissing the  aforesaid objections as per prescribed procedure of Order 21 Rule 58 of  CPC, the opportunity to adduce the evidence was not extended to  either of the parties to prove their case. Thirdly, the provision of  Order 21 Rule 58 and 59 gives the mandate to executing court to hold the  inquiry of such objections in the manner in which the Civil Suit is  tried and apparently such procedure has not been adopted by the  executing court.\n<\/p>\n
9. It was undisputed fact before the Executing Court that the  award under execution was passed in the proceeding in which the  appellant was neither impleaded as party nor given any opportunity  of hearing before passing the same, then, how this award is binding  against it for which no specific findings have been given by the  Executing Court.\n<\/p>\n
10. In the aforesaid premises This Court has to consider that in  which manner the executing court had to deal and inquire the  appellant’s objection and adjudicate the same. Before giving any  finding on this question I would like to reproduce the provision of  Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC for ready reference, which reads as under:  1[58. Adjudication of claims to, or objections to  attachment of, property<\/p>\n
(1) Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is  made to the attachment of, any property attached in  execution of a decree on the ground that such property is  not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to  adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance  with the provisions herein contained:  Provided that no such claim or objection shall be  entertained<\/p>\n
(a) where, before the claim is preferred or objection is  made, the property attached has already been sold; or<\/p>\n
(b) where the Court considers that the claim or objection  was designedly or unnecessarily delayed.\n<\/p>\n
(2) All questions (including questions relating to right,  title or interest in the property attached) arising between  the parties to a proceeding or their representatives under  this rule and relevant to the adjudication of the claim or  objection, shall be determined by the Court dealing with  the claim or objection and not by a separate suit.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Upon the determination of the questions referred to in  Sub-rule (2), the Court shall, in accordance with such  determination,<\/p>\n
(a) allow the claim or objection and release the property  from attachment either wholly or to such extent as it  thinks fit; or<\/p>\n
(b) disallow the claim or objection; or<\/p>\n
(c) continue the attachment subject to any mortgage,  charge or other interest in favour of any person; or<\/p>\n
(d) pass such order as in the circumstances of the case it  deems fit.\n<\/p>\n
(4) Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated  upon under this rule, the order made thereon shall have  the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to  appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree.\n<\/p>\n
(5) Where a claim or an objection is preferred and the  Court, under the proviso to Sub-rule (1), refuses to  entertain it, the party against whom such order is made  may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims  to the property in dispute;  but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, an order so  refusing to entertain the claims or objection shall be  conclusive.\n<\/p>\n
11. The aforesaid provision gives the statutory and substantial  right to the person objecting the attachment of any property under the  execution proceeding on the basis of his rights. On filing such  objection the Executing Court while exercising the power under the  aforesaid provision may dismiss such application at the initial stage if  the property attached has already been sold out, or such objections  are initiated to protract the proceedings and in that process the  application was designedly or unnecessarily filed. But when the  application is not dismissed on such grounds then Executing Court in  such situation is duty bound to hold the inquiry by extending the  opportunity to the parties for adducing the evidence to vindicate their  rights as the opportunity is extended in the suit. The executing court  dealing with the claims or objections shall determine all the question  including the question relating to the right, title or interest in the  property attached. For this purpose the legislature casted the duty on  the Court to hold an inquiry and inquiry means an opportunity to be  given to the parties to adduce necessary evidence in respect of their  claim, objections or to resist the claim of the opposite party and  thereafter the rival contention between the parties should be  adjudicated as such order is not only conclusive between the parties  but have an effect of decree also which is made appealable under Sub-rule 4 of aforesaid Order and if this procedure has not been followed  by the Executing Court then such order cannot be sustained in the  appeal. My aforesaid view is fully fortified by the decision of the  Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of K. Venkarayappa, v.  Ellen Industries, Coimbatore and Ors. , in which it was held as under:  3. Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. gives a statutory and  substantial right to a person to object to the  attachment of any property in execution of a  decree. When an application, in exercise thereof,  has been filed, Clauses (a) and (b) of proviso to  Sub-rule (1) of Rule 58 clothes Court with power to  dismiss such an application in limine, or (a) that  the property attached had already been sold out; or  (b) it was intended to protract the proceedings and  in that process the application was designedly  made or unnecessarily has been filed. If the Court  exercises that power, the applicant is relegated to  vindicate his rights by way of a regular suit as  contemplated under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 58 of Order 21  thereof. If the Court did not exercise the power at  its inception in terms of the above provisions, then  Sub-rule (2) thereof enjoins the Court that all  questions including the question relating the right  title or interest in the property attached shall be  determined by that Court dealing with the claim or  objection and not by a separate suit. Thereby, the  Legislature intended that it is a mandatory duty  cast on the court to hold an enquiry. The enquiry  thereby posits that an opportunity to be given to  the parties to adduce all necessary evidence in  support of the claim or to resist such a claim by the  opposite party and thereafter to give finality to the  objection by that Court, subject to a right of appeal  provided under Sub-rule (4) thereof treating the  order thereunder as a decree. The order thus  becomes conclusive. Thereby the Legislature has  manifested that holding an enquiry in adjudicating  the right title and interest of the objector in dealing  with the claim or objection is mandatory and the  order passed thereon shall be conclusive. Broached  from this perspective, when we gleaned through  the order passed, it must but be held that the lower  Court passed the order under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 58  of Order 21, without holding an enquiry and without  giving an opportunity to the Party. It straightway  passed the order on merits. Therefore the order is  per se contrary to the mandatory language and  scheme of the Code; thereby it is not only in  excess of the jurisdiction but also is vitiated by  material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
12. It is noted that the provision of Order 21 Rule 58 CPC has  been amended in the year 1976 and thereafter it is not a summary  provision, it requires inquiry in respect of validity of rights of the  party, on which the findings can be given by the court only after  extending the opportunity for adducing the evidence to the parties.  Admittedly in the case at hand in order to enquire the right and title  of the appellant even after filing the documents such procedure has  not been followed by the Executing Court and in that way the  impugned order has been passed contrary to the provision of Order  21 Rule 58 of CPC. On earlier occasion this question was answered  by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the matter of M\/s  Southern Steelmet and Alloys Ltd., Appellant v. B. M. Steel  , in which it was held as under:\n<\/p>\n
 4. …Wehavealready  expressed the view that the adjudication referred to  under  Order 21 Rule 58 C. P. Code not being  summary and as it is the intention of the  Legislature under the amended Civil Procedure  Code that it should be a decision as if rendered in a  regular suit resulting in an appealable decree, we  are of the view that a fuller examination of the  rights of parties has to be held in the instant case  after giving them adequate opportunity to place all  relevant materials before the trial court, so that it  could ultimately decide and adjudicate on all  questions including questions relating to right, title  or interest in the property attached which either  directly or indirectly arise between the parties to  the proceedings. This not having been done, we are  constrained to set aside the order of the learned  Judge and remit the subject matter to the Original  Side of This Court for a fuller and detailed  examination as contemplated under the amended  provision and for an ultimate decision after  adjudication of the rights of parties. To the above  extent, the appeal is allowed. There will be no  order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the  impugned order is not sustainable as the same is passed without  following the prescribed procedure provided under Order 21 Rule 58  of CPC.\n<\/p>\n
14. Apart the above it is undisputed fact on record that the  appellant was not impleaded as party in the Arbitration proceeding, in  which the impugned arbitration decree was passed. Hence, before  placing the attached property on auction, the claim of the appellant  should be inquired by extending the ample opportunity of hearing to  it. It is settled proposition of law that the person should not be  unheard; in other words the party should be given sufficient  opportunity of hearing before passing any order against him\/it. Such  principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Smt.  Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India<\/a> ,  in which it was held as under:\n<\/p>\n
57. …althoughtherearenopositive  words in the statute requiring that the party shall  be heard, yet the justice of the common law will  supply the omission of the legislature”. The  principle of audi alteram partem which mandates  that no one shall be condemned unheard,….\n<\/p>\n
58. …Naturaljusticeisagreat  humanising principle intended to invest law with  fairness and to secure justice and over the years it  has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting  large areas of administrative action Lord Morris of  Borth-y-Gest spoke of this rule in eloquent terms  in his address before the Bentham Club.\n<\/p>\n
15. In view of the aforesaid I am of the considered view that  before passing the impugned order on objection of the appellant the  sufficient opportunity should have been given to it for adducing the  evidence to prove the case, the same was not given, in such premises  the impugned order could not be held to be in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
16. Coming to the question whether alleged more then twenty  nine crores rupees of the appellant was outstanding against  respondent No. 2 in respect of road tax. If so, then even after holding  that the attached building and property to be the property of  respondent No. 2, the recovery of the aforesaid tax is a first charge  over the property in comparison of the recovery the sum of  respondent No. 1 under execution.\n<\/p>\n
17. Some papers regarding outstanding balance of road tax  issued by the Regional Transport Authority are placed on record.  According to which more than twenty-nine crores rupees of road tax  was outstanding against respondent No. 2 for which recovery  proceedings are pending. It is undisputed fact that Arbitration award  has been passed on account of commercial transaction between  respondent No. 1 and 2 in that way respondent No. 1 comes under the  category of such creditors having outstanding sum against the  respondent No. 2on account of their commercial transaction. But the  recovery of road tax is a different act of the State, which could not be  termed as commercial transaction between the appellant and  respondent No. 2. Such tax is levied for the purpose of the welfare of  citizen at large that always remains the first charge over the property  of the defaulter. Such question is also dealt with by the Apex Court  in the matter of Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and  Co.<\/a> , in which it was held as under:\n<\/p>\n
8. The principle of priority of  Government debts is founded on the rule of  necessity and of public policy. The basic  justification for the claim for priority of State debts  rests on the well recognised principle that the State  is entitled to raise money by taxation because  unless adequate revenue is received by the State, it  would not be able to function as a sovereign  government at all. It is essential that as a soverign,  the State should be able to discharge its primary  governmental functions and in order to be able to  discharge such functions efficiently, it must be in  possession of necessary funds and this  consideration emphasises the necessity and the  wisdom of conceding to the State, the right to  claim priority in respect of its tax dues. (See M\/s  Builders Supply Corporation, (AIR 1965 SC 1061)  (supra). In the same case the Constitution Bench  has noticed a consensus of judicial opinion that the  arrears of tax due to the State can claim priority  over private debts and that this rule of common  law amounts to law in force in the territory of  British India at the relevant time within the  meaning of Article 372(1) of the Constitution of  India and therefore continues to be inforce  thereafter. On the very principle on which the rule  is founded, the priority would be available only to  such debts as are incurred by the subjects of the  Crown by reference to the State’s soverign power  of compulsory exaction and would not extend to  charges for commercial services or obligation  incurred by the subjects to the State pursuant to  commercial transactions. Having reviewed the  available judicial prononouncements Their  Lordships have summed up the law as under:\n<\/p>\n
1. There is a consensus of judicial opinion that the  arrears of tax due to the State can claim priority  over private debts.\n<\/p>\n
2. The common law doctrine about priority of  crown debts which was recongnised by the Indian  High Courts prior to 1950 constitutes “law in  force” within the meaning of Article 372(1) and  continues to be in force.\n<\/p>\n
3. The basic justification for the claim for priority  of State debts is the rule of necessity and the  wisdom of conceding to the State the right to claim  priority in respect of its tax dues.\n<\/p>\n
4. The doctrine may not apply in respect of debts  due to the State if they are contracted by citizens in  relation to commercial activities which may be  undertaken by the State for achieving socioeconomic good. In other words, where welfare  State enters into commercial fields which cannot  be regarded as an essential and integral part of the  basic government functions of the State and seeks  to recover debts from debtors arising out of such  commercial activites the applicability of the  doctrine of priority shall be open for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
18. In view of such dictum of the Apex Court and by virtue of  Section 52 and 53 of Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyam read  with Section 137 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code even  on holding the attached property to be the property of respondent  No. 2, the outstanding road tax is the first charge on such property.  Although such findings could be given by the Executing Court only  after extending the opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence  in respect of the property under attachment and also regarding arrears  of tax. Therefore, at this stage I am not expressing any opinion in  this regard. This question shall remain opened before the Executing  Court for its adjudication.\n<\/p>\n
19. Although I have not been apprised by any provision by the  counsel for the respondent No. 1 that appellant is bound to indemnify  the awarded sum of impugned arbitration award passed against  respondent No. 2, in which it was not made the party. It is undisputed  fact on record that respondent No. 2 is duly constituted autonomous  corporation constituted under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Rajya  Pariwahan Nigam Act, in that way the State of Madhya Pradesh and  respondent No. 2 had different identity. Although this question shall  remain opened before the Executing Court for its adjudication,  whether the State is bound to indemnify the aforesaid sum of  impugned award under execution to respondent No1, even if it was  not a party in the Arbitration proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
20. Coming to the notification dated 27.12.2002, firstly I would  like to reproduced the concerning part of such notification.\n<\/p>\n
Now, therefore, in exercise of powers  conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 58 of Madhya  Pradesh Reorganization Act.2000, the Central  Government hereby makes the following manners for the  apportionment of the assets rights and liability of the  Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation  between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh  namely;\n<\/p>\n
(1) The field staff, buses and stores of the Madhya  Pradesh State Road Corporation shall be divided  on the basis of ‘as is where as’ as on 1st November  2000. The head office staff shall be shared by the  ratio of 18:82 between Chhatisgarh and Madhya  Pradesh. The respective States shall be responsible  for their share of staff from the date of the  dissolution.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The sharing of current assets (excluding buses and  stores) and liabilities including loans advance, etc  shall be made by arriving at the formula midway  between the formula suggested by Government of  Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh, i. e. between  18:82 suggested by the Chhatisgarh and  26.49:73.51 suggested by Madhya Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
(3) One representative of Government of Chhatisgarh  shall be taken on the Board of Madhya Pradesh  State Road Transport Corporation for the  transitional period till division is complete.\n<\/p>\n
21. According to aforesaid notification so far assets and  liabilities regarding loan, advances are concerned, the suggestions of  State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhatisgarh are mentioned in it  but no final verdict in this regard has been given. Therefore, at this  juncture this notification is not helping to the respondent No. 1 for  rejecting the objection of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
22. Although on behalf of the respondent No. 1 the case laws in  the matter of Shri Bhimeshwara Swami Varu Temple v.  Pedapudi Krishna Murthi<\/a>  is cited.  This Court did not have any dispute regarding the principle that  documentary proof of title of property can not be displaced by oral  evidence, but in the case at hand in the above mentioned  circumstance the same is not helping to the respondent at this stage as  the documents placed by the parties have not been proved by them as  per procedure as held earlier.\n<\/p>\n
23. He also cited a case of this Court in the matter of State of  Madhya Pradesh v. Jhankar Singh<\/a> reported in AIR 1973 S. C.  274 in which it was held that by virtue of Section 19 of Registration  Act the lease granted by the Government under the Government  Grants Act 1895 does not require any registration and Section 107 of  Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to such lease. In the  present case except the letter dated 7.10.1964 issued by the General  Administration Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh for  transferring some plots to respondent No. 2 no any other document of  title or lease deed is neither produced nor referred by the counsel for  the respondent No. 1. Therefore, this citation is also not giving any  benefit to the respondent No. 1 at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
24. Under the aforesaid premises the order of the Executing  Court is apparently perverse, capricious and contrary to the law and  the same is not sustainable. Hence, the same is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
25. The respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to file all those  documents before the executing court in accordance with the  prescribed procedure which have been filed here with I. A.  No. 2017\/06 and I. A. No. 13766\/07, under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC  and the executing court is also directed to consider the same in  accordance with law. Accordingly these two I.As are disposed off.\n<\/p>\n
26. Under the aforesaid premises by allowing this appeal the  impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the  Executing Court with a direction to adjudicate the objection of the  appellant after holding inquiry by extending the adequate opportunity  to both the parties for adducing the evidence. It is further directed  that till adjudication of the aforesaid objection the auction  proceedings of the aforesaid attached properties be kept in abeyance.  In view of disposal of this appeal the I. A. No. 10438\/05, appellants  application for grant of interim stay I. A. No. 1785\/08, an application  of respondent No. 1 for some direction and I. A. No. 13899\/07, an  application of respondent No. 1 for vacating the interim stay do not  require any further consideration, hence, the same are hereby  disposed off.\n<\/p>\n
27. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no  order as to the costs. Decree be drawn up accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
28. Appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008 Author: U Maheshwari Bench: U Maheshwari JUDGMENT U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal is directed on behalf of the Objector State of Madhya Pradesh under Section 96 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2005 passed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-06T21:25:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-06T21:25:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5226,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-06T21:25:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-06T21:25:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-06T21:25:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008"},"wordCount":5226,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-06T21:25:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-megma-leasing-limited-and-anr-on-10-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Megma Leasing Limited And Anr. on 10 March, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8650","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}