Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1233 (MAD)

S. Elumalai v. Chinatambi & Another

2010-03-24

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2010
Judgment :- The revision petitioner was the judgment debtor before the lower Court. This revision has been preferred against the order passed by the execution Court in allowing the application filed by the auction purchaser to effect the delivery of the schedule mentioned property in pursuance of the sale certificate obtained by him through Court in the execution petition. 2. The important facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision would be as follows:- (a) The revision petitioner had filed the application to set aside the Court auction sale conducted on 05.09.2005 and confirmed by the lower Court on 17.3.2006 on the ground of fraud and irregularity committed in the conduct of sale and also to pass an order to set aside the auction sale conducted on 05.9.2005 which was confirmed on 17.3.2006 as a nullity and hit by the provisions of Order 21 Rule 64 CPC and also to pass necessary orders. (b) The reasons stated by the petitioner before the lower Court would be that the property detailed in the schedule was brought for sale in court auction on 05.9.2005 for a sale price of Rs.1,09,350/- and the auction purchaser was the successful bidder at the Court auction sale and while knocking the auction sale, the purchaser should have deposited 25% of the consideration and the balance 75% of the sale consideration shall be paid by the auction purchaser into Court on or before 15th day from the sale of the property. However, the auction purchaser has miserably failed to deposit 1/4th of the consideration of the Court auction sale on 20.9.2005. The auction purchaser had violated the mandatory requirement under law and the provision has been violated which would make the Court auction sale null and void on the ground of fraud and irregularity. The auction purchaser has deliberately and willfully failed and neglected to reveal the material facts and allowed the Court to pass an order of confirmation of sale on 17.3.2006. Thereafter, the auction purchaser has filed an application in E.A.No.160 of 2007 for the delivery of schedule mentioned property on the basis of confirmation of sale on 17.3.2006 for the auction sale conducted on 05.9.2005. The Court auction sale confirmed on 17.3.2006 is liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud and irregularity. (c) The value of the property which was brought for sale on 05.9.2005 had been under valued. The Court auction sale confirmed on 17.3.2006 is liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud and irregularity. (c) The value of the property which was brought for sale on 05.9.2005 had been under valued. The Amin, who fixed, the value of the said property, had under valued the same and the upset price fixed by the Court is also very low and the property would fetch several lakhs. But it was valued only at Rs.1,09,350/-. The value of one cent of the schedule property was worth more than Rs.5,000/- as per the prevailing market and the guideline value of the Government. The said property was very fertile agricultural land and was yielding three bogum crops. There is a well in the schedule mentioned property and the revision petitioner has got a right of ½ share in the well and it has got copious supply of water for irrigation. The well was valued only at Rs.20,000/- despite it would be worth not less than Rs.2,00,000/-. (d) The first respondent/decree holder had wantonly brought the entire property in Court auction sale for execution of a decree for a sum of Rs.8,189/- only and it is a clear violation of the provision of Order 21 Rule 64 CPC. The order of confirmation of sale passed on 17.3.2006 for the auction sale held on 05.09.2005 has put the revision petitioner into irreparable loss, injury and hardship. It is for the Court to direct the property be deleted and a portion of the property should alone been ordered for sale and the Court did not pass such order to bring the lesser extent of property for the execution of the decree. The law postulates that in a proceeding where the property brought for sale in a Court auction for the small decretal amount, such portion to satisfy the said decree amount shall brought for sale and the provision is not a discretion but an obligation imposed on the Court and if the entire property over and above the requirement to satisfy the decree is brought for sale by the Court it will be against law and, therefore, the sale conducted on 05.9.2005 for an excess extent of property, which was and confirmed on 17.3.2006 is liable to be set aside. (e) The second respondent/auction purchaser would state that he was a successful bidder in the Court auction held on 05.9.2005 and he deposited 1/4th amount required under law before the lower Court on the date of sale itself and the balance 3/4th sale price together with the sale certificate charges within the time as stipulated by law and the lower Court, on satisfaction of the time limit, had accepted the said remittance. The auction purchaser would also state that the Amin appointed by the Court valued the property at Rs.1,09,000/- based upon the value of one cent at Rs.700/-and the well was valued by him at Rs.25,000/-. The said value was mentioned in the sale papers and it was promptly served upon the revision petitioner/judgment debtor. Thereafter, the said value fixed by the Amin at Rs.700/-per one cent was reduced to Rs.600/- as the upset price as per the order passed in E.A.No.255 of 2005 and the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor received the notice but remained silent without making any objection. Therefore, the revision petitioner is estopped from questioning the value fixed by the lower Court. (f) The respondent/auction purchaser would also state that the revision petitioner/judgment Debtor had also filed an application in E.A.No.463 of 2005 under Order 21 Rule 64 CPC to set aside the sale and the said application was dismissed by the lower Court on 08.3.2006, after hearing his objections. The lower Court had given an opportunity to the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor to pay the sale amount and get the order of setting aside of sale and the said opportunity was not availed nor the revision petitioner had elected to state the present objections that small extent can be sold and be sufficient for satisfying the said decree amount. The filing of the present application is sheer an abuse of the process of law and to deprive the auction purchaser from enjoying the fruits of Court auction sale. The revision petitioner has not preferred any revision against the said order passed by the lower Court and, therefore, he is barred by law from raising the question once again. (g) Apart from that the revision petitioner instigated his son Sivalingam to file an application under Order 21 Rule 59 CPC in E.A.No.250 of 2005 and the same was dismissed by the lower Court, after enquiry. (g) Apart from that the revision petitioner instigated his son Sivalingam to file an application under Order 21 Rule 59 CPC in E.A.No.250 of 2005 and the same was dismissed by the lower Court, after enquiry. The appeal in CMC No.1 of 2006 filed before Sub Court, Madurantagam, against the said order of the dismissal, was also dismissed. The revision petitioner, having full knowledge about those steps taken by his son, remained exparte in those proceedings. The reasons now stated have not been raised when sufficient opportunities were given to the revision petitioner. The property has been delivered to the auction purchaser and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property sold to him through Court auction sale. Since the delivery was effected in favour of the auction purchaser, it cannot be recalled nor stayed. The said right in the property has already been vested with the auction purchaser by confirmation of sale and the revision petitioner has raised the plea beyond reasonable time and he is also barred by resjudicata. Therefore, the said application has to be dismissed. 3. The lower Court had considered the execution applications in E.A.No.214 of 2007, an application to recall delivery warrant; E.A.No.215 of 2007, an application for stay of all the proceedings, E.A.No.218 of 2007, an application to set aside the sale held on 05.3.2005 and confirmed on 17.3.2006; E.A.No.160 of 2007, an application for payment out filed by the decree holder and the application in E.A.No.160 of 2006, an application filed by the auction purchaser for effecting delivery of the schedule mentioned property in pursuance of the auction sale stated above, and passed a common order. The present revision has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed in E.A.No.160 of 2007 in allowing the application to deliver schedule mentioned property in favour of the auction purchaser. 4. Heard Mr. P. Seshubalan Raja, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.S. Subramaniam, the learned counsel for the second respondent, No appearance for the decree holder. 5. For convenience, the parties are referred as the Judgment Debtor, Auction purchaser and decree holder instead of referring as to their ranks in this revision petition. 6. 4. Heard Mr. P. Seshubalan Raja, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.S. Subramaniam, the learned counsel for the second respondent, No appearance for the decree holder. 5. For convenience, the parties are referred as the Judgment Debtor, Auction purchaser and decree holder instead of referring as to their ranks in this revision petition. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgment Debtor would submit in his argument that the lower Court has not applied its mind in allowing the application filed by the auction purchaser nor to allow the application filed by the judgment debtor to set aside the sale dated 5.3.2005. He would further submit in his argument that the total decreed amount laid for execution was only for a sum of Rs.8,189/- and the said property brought for sale was only valued at Rs.1,09,000/- despite it would fetch more than Rs.10,00,000/- including the well situated therein. He would further submit in his argument that the total extent of the property brought for sale was not necessary but a small portion of the said property could be sufficient to satisfy the decree. He would further stress in his argument that the said mandate has been clearly mentioned in Order 21 Rule 64 CPC that the property should be “necessary to satisfy the decree”. In the light of the said provision, the sale as ordered by the lower Court for the entire property including the well was not in accordance with law and the said sale was an unreasonable one. 7. He would again submit that the total extent of the property brought for sale was 1 acre 20 cents along with a well and a motor pump sets which was excess and unnecessary for satisfying the small decree of Rs.8,189/- and on the face of it, the sale itself is not sustainable and, therefore, it has to be set aside. He would again submit that the property belonged to the judgment debtor was valued only at Rs.600/- per one cent and on the other hand it would fetch a sum of Rs.5,000/- per one cent on the date of sale. He would bring it to the notice of this Court about the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (1) LW 550 in between Subramaniam and Five Others v. Sadaya Padayachi and Five others in support of the said proposition of law. He would bring it to the notice of this Court about the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (1) LW 550 in between Subramaniam and Five Others v. Sadaya Padayachi and Five others in support of the said proposition of law. He would also bring it to the notice of this Court a catena of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Air 1990 SC 119 in between Ambati Narasayya v. Subba Rao and Another; 1999 (3) CTC 544 (SC) in between U. Nilan Vs. Kannayyan (Dead) through LRs; 2004 (3) CTC 671 (SC) in between S. Mariyappa (Dead) by LRs and Others V. Siddappa and another and 2006 3 CTC 180 (SC) in between Balakrishnan v. Malaiyandi Konar for the proposition of law that the execution Court has to first decide as to whether it is necessary to bring the entire property for sale or such portion of the property thereon to satisfy the decree. Therefore, he would request the Court that the sale as held by the Court on 05.3.2005 which was confirmed on 17.3.2006 in favour of the auction purchaser to the detriment of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor has to be set aside since it violated the provisions of Order 21 Rule 64 CPC and the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court. He would also submit that the lower Court had lost sight of all these judgments and the statutory provisions but had dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtor in E.A.No.218 of 2007 and, therefore, he would request the Court to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court and to allow the revision. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent/auction purchaser would submit in his argument that the revision petitioner cannot raise any question regarding the auction sale as null and void in this revision since he has not preferred any appeal or revision against the order passed by the lower Court in E.A.No.218 of 2007 and the present revision petition has been filed only against the order passed in E.A.No.160 of 2007 which was an application filed by the auction purchaser for delivery of the property in pursuance of the confirmation of the sale held on 17.3.2006. He would submit in his argument that the auction sale held on 05.9.2005 which was confirmed on 17.3.2006 was questioned by the judgment debtor, on an earlier occasion, in E.A.No.463 of 2005 and the same was inquired by the lower Court and was dismissed on 08.3.2006 and the said fact was not disclosed by the judgment debtor in the revision petition nor in his application to set aside the sale filed in B.A.No.218 of 2007. He would further submit in his argument that the sale has been found valid and upheld before passing an order of delivery of possession of the property as requested by the auction purchaser and the judgment debtor cannot raise all these objections to set aside the sale as it is barred by law of resjudicata. 9. He would also submit in his argument that the son of the judgment debtor, namely, Sivalingam, filed an application claiming that the property was also belonging to him and to raise attachment and for stay of the execution of the decree in E.A.No.250 of 2005 and in the petition, the judgment debtor remained exparte in the said application despite he was served with the notice, and the said application was also dismissed by the lower Court on 03.6.2005. He would further submit in his argument that the judgment debtor did not raise the present contentions in the earlier proceedings before the lower Court, and with a view to defeat the rights of the decree holder accrued from the decree the judgment debtor played all the game but the same end in vain against him. He would also submit that the claim of the judgment debtor to set aside the sale is clearly a bar and he cannot plead the same at the stage of delivery of the property in favour of the auction purchaser after the right in the property has been vested with the auction purchaser. He would also submit in his argument that the said right accrued to the auction purchaser cannot be defeated at this stage when the judgment debtor kept silent all these years within the time limit as prescribed under law. He would also submit in his argument that the said right accrued to the auction purchaser cannot be defeated at this stage when the judgment debtor kept silent all these years within the time limit as prescribed under law. He would also submit that the judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case and the judgment debtor cannot take shelter under the settled principles of law to which he is not entitled to. Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the revision petition. 10. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 11. The present revision petitioner is the judgment debtor and the second respondent herein is the auction purchaser and the first respondent is a decree holder. The decree holder had obtained a money decree in O.S.No.225 of 2001 against the Judgment debtor and had launched the execution proceedings in E.P.No.166 of 2002 for attachment of the schedule mentioned properties and for sale and by virtue of Court auction sale, he wanted to satisfy the decree from out of the sale price amount deposited by the intending purchaser. Accordingly, the sale was ordered, after fixing the price at Rs.1,09,000/-, for the entire property, namely, 1 acre 20 cents including ¼ right in a well situated therein fitted with motor pump set. 12. I have also perused the records called from the lower Court. As per the records submitted by the lower Court, I could see that the Court Amin inspected the schedule mentioned property i.e., 1 acre 20 cents and the well and had fixed the value at Rs.700/- per one cent for the agricultural lands. The Amin had also fixed the value of the well at Rs.25,000/-. The said value fixed by the Amin was reduced to Rs.600/- per one cent and the value of the well was reduced to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.25,000/- as per the order passed by the executing Court in E.A.No.255 of 2004. In the application filed by the decree holder to reduce the upset price, notice was ordered to the respondent/judgment debtor and notice was given to his counsel and after enquiry, the lower Court had fixed the upset price at Rs.600/- per one cent and fixed the value of the well at Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, the auction was held on 05.9.2005. In the application filed by the decree holder to reduce the upset price, notice was ordered to the respondent/judgment debtor and notice was given to his counsel and after enquiry, the lower Court had fixed the upset price at Rs.600/- per one cent and fixed the value of the well at Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, the auction was held on 05.9.2005. In the said auction, the auction purchaser was the successful bidder and the sale was knocked down by him and accordingly, he had paid 25% of the sale amount immediately, and the remaining 75% of the sale consideration and the sale certificate charges within 15 days time. 13. However it was insisted in the argument of the judgment debtor that the 75% of the sale consideration was not paid in time. On verification of the records, the remaining 3/4th amount of sale consideration with the sale certificate charges were promptly paid on the 15th day from the date of sale by the auction purchaser and the said payment was found in order. Therefore, the said contention raised by the judgment debtor in the petition that the sale amount was not deposited by the auction purchaser within the time is not correct. Thereafter, the said sale was found confirmed on 17.3.2006. According to the said sale, the entire property of 1 acre 20 cents with ½ right in the well situated in the said property was sold for executing the decree amount of Rs.8,189/-. No doubt, the sale price was fixed at Rs.1,09,000/- and it was reduced by the lower Court after observing all the formalities with the knowledge of the revision petitioner/Judgment debtor. Therefore, there cannot be any illegality in fixing the sale price of the said property. Moreover, it was not agitated by the judgment debtor at the time when the property was valued by the Court Amin and when it was reduced by the Court in accordance with law. 14. Now the point for consideration is whether the whole of the property measuring 1 acre 20 cents should have been ordered for sale by the lower Court for satisfying the decree amount of Rs.8,189/-. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 119 in between Ambati Narasayya v. Subba Rao and Another would law down as follows: “9. We may again hark back to the case of the appellant. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 119 in between Ambati Narasayya v. Subba Rao and Another would law down as follows: “9. We may again hark back to the case of the appellant. The amount claimed in the execution petition was about Rs.2400. To realize that amount the land measuring 10 acres was sold for Rs.17,000/-. The appellate court has stated that the land being one, could not have been divided. Shri Ganesh, learned Counsel for the respondent sought to justify that view. But we find it difficult to appreciate that reason. It seems to be against commonsense. The land is not indivisible. Nor division is impracticable or undesirable. Out of 10 acres, the court could have conveniently demarcated a portion and sold it. Unfortunately, no such attempt was made and it was not even thought of. The court has blindfold sold the entire property. This is a usual feature which we have noticed in most of the execution cases. We must deprecate this tendency. Therefore is a duty cast upon the court to sell only such property or a portion thereof as necessary to satisfy the decree. It is a mandate of the legislature which cannot be ignored. We cannot, therefore, sustain the impugned sale. It must be set aside being in contravention of the provisions of Rule 64 Order XXI CPC.” Similarly, in 1999 (3) CTC 544 (SC) in between U. Nilan Vs. Kannayyan (Dead) through LRs. The same view has been affirmed. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2004 (3) CTC 671 in between S. Mariyappa (Dead) by LRs and Others v. Siddappa and Another, it has been laid as follows: “4. Not only are we bound by this judgment but we are in full agreement with the principle laid down therein. As the Executing Court has not observed its statutory duty, the sale will have to be and is hereby set aside. The purchaser shall be returned his monies and the property be handed back to the appellants. We clarify that it will be open for the Judgment Debtor to seek execution of his decree in accordance with law.” The same principles have been followed in 1998 (1) LW 550 in between Subramaniam and Five Others v. Sadaya Padayachi and Five Others. The purchaser shall be returned his monies and the property be handed back to the appellants. We clarify that it will be open for the Judgment Debtor to seek execution of his decree in accordance with law.” The same principles have been followed in 1998 (1) LW 550 in between Subramaniam and Five Others v. Sadaya Padayachi and Five Others. The relevant portion of the said judgment of this Court reads as follows: “As held in the decision reported in 1994 S.C.C. 131 = 1994 -1 LW 49 (Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh) and also in 1989 Sup.(2) SCC 693=1991-1 LW 602 (Supra) the Court sale was one without jurisdiction. If it is one without jurisdiction and a nullity, the application can come only under Section 47, CPC and not under Order 21, Rule 90 CPC.” The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2006 (3) CPC 180 in between Balakrishnan v. Malaiyandi Konar would be relevant for the purpose of this case. The relevant passage would run as follows: “10. The provision contains some significant words. They are “necessary to satisfy the decree”. Use of the said expression clearly indicates the legislative intent that no sale can be allowed beyond that decretal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation. See Takkasseela Pedda Subba Reddy v. Pujari Padmavathamma, AIR 1977 SC 1789 . In all execution proceedings, Court has to first decide whether it is necessary to bring the entire property to sale or such portion thereof as may seen necessary to satisfy the decree. If the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small the Court must bring only such portion of the property the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree holder. It is immaterial whether the property is one or several. Even if the property is one, if a separate portion could be sold without violating any provision of law only such portion of the property should be sold. This is not just a discretion but an obligation imposed on the Court. The sale held without examining this aspect and not in conformity with this mandatory requirement would be illegal and without jurisdiction. See Ambatti Narassayya v. M. Subba Rao and Anr., 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 693. This is not just a discretion but an obligation imposed on the Court. The sale held without examining this aspect and not in conformity with this mandatory requirement would be illegal and without jurisdiction. See Ambatti Narassayya v. M. Subba Rao and Anr., 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 693. The duty cast upon the Court to sale only such portion or portio thereof as is necessary to satisfy the decree is a mandate of the legislature which cannot be ignored. Similar, view has been expressed in S. Mariyappa (Dead) by LRs. And Ors. V. Siddappa and anr., 2004 (3) CTC 671; 2005 (10) SC 235. In the aforesaid judgment, the above referred judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court have been discussed and followed. The principle laid in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1994 (1) SCC 131 in between Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh was also referred and applied. The aforesaid dictum has been followed in the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (1) LW 550 and conclusion has been reached that such a sale was one without jurisdiction and the same has to be set aside as it was not in accordance with Order 21 Rule 64 CPC. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, the clear mandate given by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court would be to the effect that any order passed by the Court without adhering to the provision of Order 21 Rule 64 CPC regarding the extent of property brought to sale necessary for satisfying the decree amount in an execution of the proceedings, prior to the conduct of auction sale, would be without jurisdiction. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment of this Court made in 1998 (1) LW 550 is squarely applicable to the present case. The previous application made by the Judgment Debtor seeking for setting aside the sale was on different footing and the dismissal of the said application in E.A.No.463 of 2005 will not be a bar to the present application. The order for the conduct of auction sale for 1 acre 20 cents with ½ right in the well, even according to the value fixed by the Amin to the extent of Rs.1,09,000/-, was too excess for the decree amount of Rs.8,189/- payable by the Judgment Debtor to the decree holder. The order for the conduct of auction sale for 1 acre 20 cents with ½ right in the well, even according to the value fixed by the Amin to the extent of Rs.1,09,000/-, was too excess for the decree amount of Rs.8,189/- payable by the Judgment Debtor to the decree holder. Therefore, it is ex-facie an excess execution violating the mandate given under order 21 Rule 64 CPC and the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Since the executing Court has not acted in accordance with the principles mentioned in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the view that the sale conducted on 5.3.2005 and confirmed on 15.3.2006 was without jurisdiction and, therefore, liable to be set aside. It has been contended that the auction purchaser has taken delivery by virtue of the order in E.A.No.160 of 2007 and the decree holder has been paid with the decree amount out of the sale price amount deposited before the lower Court. Since the sale itself was found null and void there cannot be any right flown to parties out of the said sale. 17. The lower Court has not considered this aspect but had simply dismissed the claim of the applicant and, therefore, it is liable to be intervened. Accordingly, the order passed by the lower Court in E.A.No.160 of 2007 ordering delivery to the auction purchaser is set aside and the application is dismissed. 18. As regards the order passed in E.A.No.218 of 2007 is concerned, an appeal was preferred before Sub Court, Madurantagam in C.M.A.No.4 of 2008 and the said Court had dismissed the appeal since the matter was subjudice to an order to be passed by this Court in this revision. Therefore, there is no impediment for this Court to reverse and set aside the common order passed by the lower Court in all those applications. 19. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the execution Court for fresh consideration in all those applications in the light of the aforesaid findings and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments reported in AIR 1990 SC 119 in between Ambati Narasayya v. Subba Rao and Another 1999 (3) CTC 544 (SC) in between U. Nilan Vs. Kannayyan (Dead) through Lrs., 2004 (3) CTC 671 in between S. Mariyappa (Dead) by LRs and Others v. Siddappa and Another; 2006 (3) CTC 180 in between Balakrishnan v. Malaiyandi Konar and 1994 (1) SCC 131 in between Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh and also the principles laid down by this Court in 1998 (1) LW 550 in between Subramaniam and Five Others v. Sadaya Padayachi and Five Others and to pass an order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the lower Court’s records within a period of one month. 24..03..2010 This Petition having been listed on this day under the caption “for being mentioned” in the presence of aforesaid Counsel by both the parties and this Court made the following order: This matter is listed today under the caption “for being mentioned”. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the second respondent would insist that suitable direction may be given to the lower Court for disposing the case, after it has been remitted back to the lower Court, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has no objection for the same. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court is convinced to direct the lower Court to dispose the applications remitted back and the execution petition, as per the order of this Court passed earlier on 24.3.2010, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the orders or the lower Court records from this Court, whichever is later.