SMT. J. DEEPA MUPPAIAH MATH v. BADRINARAYANA LADDA

Judgment

#1. BADRINARAYANA LADDA S/O. NANDKISHORE LADDA, AGED. 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SREENIDHI ROAD LINES, NO.345, 8KIRAN NIVAS9, OPPOSITE TO AKASHVANI, HOSAPETE-583201, DIST. BALLARI. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.

#2. NANDEESH S/O. CHANDRASEKHARIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR9S. 2A) Y.M. SAHANA W/O. LATE NANDEESH B.C., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: 7TH WARD, NEAR APMC MARKET, BEHIND HP PETROL PUMP, KOTTUR ROAD, HARAPANAHALLI-583131, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 DIST: BALLARI. 2B) KUMAR GIRISH Y.M. S/O. LATE NANDEESH B.C., AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY M/G HIS MOTHER, SMT. Y.M. SAHANA W/O. LATE NANDEESH B.C., R/O. 7TH WARD, NEAR APMC MARKET, BEHIND HP PETROL PUMP, KOTTUR ROAD, HARAPANAHALLI-583131, DIST: BALLARI.

#3. SMT. CHANDRKABAI W/O. LATE LAXMAN NAIK, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO.1, BAPUJINAGAR, KUDLIGI-583135, DIST. BALLARI. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-APPEAL AGAINST R2 STANDS ABATED; SRI RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (A AND B); SRI NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.N. RAJESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (THROUGH V/C)) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 104 OF CPC., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED IN E.P. NO.36/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.2012 ON IA NO.4 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOSPET AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) The above regular first appeal is filed by the judgment debtor/appellant challenging the order dated 17.07.2012 passed in E.P.No.36/2011 passed on I.A.No.4 filed under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 of CPC. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

#2. The suit filed by respondent No.1 herein has been decreed in O.S.No.30/2007 against respondent No.2 for sum of Rs.22,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from

01.04.2004 till realization from respondent No.2 herein. The said judgment and decree in the suit had attained finality. Respondent No.1 filed Execution Petition No.36/2011 for recovery of decreetal amount from respondent No.2 who was judgment debtor. The executing Court has issued proclamation of attachment of suit property and also issued sale warrant. The appellant herein who is sister of respondent No.2 and daughter of one Chandrashekaraih has filed I.A.No.4 under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC for determination of her claim and rights in the suit lands and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 I.A.No.5 under Order XXI Rule 59 of CPC for stay of proceedings in the execution petition. The executing Court held public auction and accepted the bid of the auction purchaser and directed to deposit the bid amount and adjourned the case for filing of objection to I.A.Nos.4 and 5

filed by the appellant herein being judgment debtor.

#3. The executing Court has allowed I.A.No.4 filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC determining the appellant9s right, title and interest in the suit property at 1/3rd share and ordered that the appellant is entitled to get 1/3rd share in the sale proceeds, but not in the landed properties. Thereafter, the executing Court has issued sale certificate in favour of respondent No.3 herein, who is the auction purchaser.

#4. Though the executing Court has determined the appellant9s share at 1/3rd, but ordered 1/3rd share in the sale proceeds, but not in the landed properties. Therefore, she preferred the present appeal by raising various grounds.

#5. Grounds are raised in the appeal and consonance with the grounds raised, learned counsel for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 appellant submitted that before issuance of proclamation the executing Court should have enquired and fixed the offset price of suit properties by considering the nature of lands and market value of the lands. Further, submitted that the Trial Court ought to have ordered for sale of part of suit lands to satisfy the decreetal amount due, but not the entire suit lands measuring more than 07 acres. Further, submitted that I.A.No.4 (under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC) and I.A.No.5 (under Order XXI Rule 59 of CPC) were filed on 19.09.2011. The executing Court ought to have determined the right of the appellant before proceeding with the auction sale, but proceeded for sale thus resulting into miscarriage of justice. Further submitted that on 14.12.2011 evidence of the appellant was recorded and she is examined as PW-1 and the prayer made is for staying sale proceedings and not to confirm the auction sale, but the executing Court has proceeded to order for sale confirmation and issued sale certificate to the auction purchaser leading to multiplicity of proceedings. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013

#6. Further, the executing Court though has determined share of the appellant as 1/3rd, but ordered in sale proceeds only not in landed properties by assigning the reasons that the appellant is residing at Bijapur and he is not able to cultivate the land personally. Therefore, assigning this reason, only determining share to the sale proceedings is not correct. Further, submitted that the impugned order determining 1/3rd share only to the sale proceeds, but not in landed properties already attained finality and the appellant is challenging the order so far as not determining the right of the appellant against the landed properties. Therefore, prays to set aside the order so far as it relates to not granting 1/3rd share in landed property but determining 1/3rd share only to the sale proceeds.

#7. Further, it is argued that when the executing Court had determined the appellant9s share at 1/3rd each to J.Dr.-Nandeesh (appellant) father Chandrasekhariah and during pendency of the appeal in this Court, the father Chandrasekharaiah died. Therefore, his 1/3rd share devolves equally on the appellant and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 JDr/respondent No.2 herein. Therefore, determination of share of the appellant and respondent No.2 ought to be half extent to each, therefore, prays for modification of the order so far as determination of share is concerned. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and determine the share of the appellant as ½ in the landed properties.

#8. Further, learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the following judgments: 1) AMBATI NARASAYYA VS. M. SUBBA RAO & ANOTHER reported in 1989 (2) SCC 693 (Ambati Narasayya9s Case). 2) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR H.C OF CALCUTTA AND OTHERS reported in (2000) 5 SCC 274 (Union Bank of India9s Case). 3) SRI C.S.MOHAN VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2007 KAR 4921 (C.S.Mohan9s Case). 4) S. R. DAYANANDA VS. K.S.NAGESH RAO (DECEASED) BY L.RS. AND ANOTHER reported 1996 SCC KAR 379 (S.R.Dayananda9s Case). - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013

#9. On the other hand, learned counsel respondent No.3 auction purchaser submitted that the present appeal is not an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(j) of CPC challenging the order of refusing to set-aside the sale under Order XXI Rule 92 of CPC, but this is an appeal under Section 96 of CPC under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC holding that the appellant is entitled to only sale proceeds not the landed property is within the power to be exercised under Order XXI Rule 58(3)(d) of CPC which is deemed to have same force and subject to the same condition of the appeal or otherwise as it was a decree under Order XXI Rule 58(4) of CPC. Further, submitted that under Order XXI Rule 58(1)(b) of CPC the executing Court may reject the application for determination of the rights if the Court considers the claim or the objection was deliberately or unnecessarily delayed. Therefore, when application entertained under Order XXI Rule 58(1) of CPC, upon determination of the question, the executing Court under Order XXI Rule 58(3) of CPC has the power not only to allow the claim or objection and release the property from - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 attachment either wholly or to that extent as it deems fit but also to pass order under Order XXI Rule 58(3)(d) of CPC.

#10. Further, the executing Court has assigned reasons at paragraph No.17 of its judgment why the share of 1/3rd is determined to the sale proceeds, but not to the landed properties, which is perfectly justifiable one. Further, submitted that as per Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC, if a person is entitled for share in the assets or whose interests are affected by the sale may apply to the Court to set-aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud, but there is no such application filed alleging that there is material irregularity or fraud so as to set aside the sale. Therefore, the executing Court at its discretion under Order XXI Rule 58(3)(d) of CPC has determined share in the sale proceeds.

#11. Further, submitted that under Order XXI Rule 92(1) of CPC upon confirmation of sale, the same shall become absolute and once the sale has become absolute, under Order XXI Rule 94 of CPC certificate is issued to the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 purchaser and that is the reason for this appeal. The appellant has not challenged the sale and therefore the sale has become absolute; then the executing Court is correct in determining the share towards sale proceeds, but not landed properties. Further, submitted that the appellant has only challenged the order dated 17.07.2012 passed on I.A.No.4 but not challenged the sale confirmation held dated

27.12.2012. Therefore, having not done so, but merely challenging the order dated 17.07.2012, the effect of confirmation of sale which is judicial proceedings passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be nullified. Further, submitted that when the auction was held, the market value of the property as per the estimated guidelines value published under the provisions of Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 was Rs.61,000/- per acre. Therefore, as per the notification dated 01.03.2011 for 07.09 acre of land the property value would come to Rs.4,32,490/-. Whereas, the petitioner has offered Rs.42,00,000/- which is almost 10 time the sub-registrar9s valuation as on that day. Therefore, respondent No.3 is a genuine and bona fide - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 auction purchaser and also it is not the case of appellant that fraud is played but even the appellant has not challenged the sale. Therefore, submitted under these circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

#12. Further, submitted that the appellant herself was a signatory to the effect the mutation of the property in the name of judgment debtor as it is evident from the family tree Ex.D-2 to which the appellant herself is a signatory. The appellant has allowed the house property of the mother to be sold and has not sought a share in the said property is evident from the sale deed dated 09.07.2009 marked as Ex.D-1, but the appellant made claim in the property not at the rate of 1/3rd share but in respect of 04.84 cents which works out to 2/3rd share in the property based on an unregistered document namely Oppige Kararu Patra dated

08.08.2009 which is a date much before the decree dated

18.12.2010 in O.S.No.30/2007. Thus, anti dating the agreement is evident and if she had a Oppige Kararu Patra as on 08.08.2009, she has not explained why she kept quite over the same till 19.09.2011. Therefore, this goes to prove - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 that the application filed by the appellant is nothing but with a malafide intention to cause delay/protract the proceedings of the bonafide sale to effect on respondent No.3.

#13. Further argued with reference to the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of BARNES INVESTMENT LTD. VS. RAJ K. GUPTA reported in 2001 (7) SCC 94 (Barnes case), no claim or objection shall be entertained if the Court considers it was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. Further submitted that, if the appellant choose to file an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC setting aside the sale instead of seeking to set it aside under Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC, the sanctity of the Court auction should be upheld. The Court auction cannot be set aside by the parties without following the procedure established by law. In the absence of challenge to confirmation of sale by filing a necessary application under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC or under Order XLIII Rule 1(j) of CPC, the appellant has no right to challenge the sale made in favour of respondent No.3. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013

#14. Further, submitted that the executing Court is justified in ordering payment of only the appellant9s share of the sale proceeds deposited by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 took a calculated risk by depositing only Rs.15,00,000/- before this Court. The submission addressed by the appellant that she is entitled to 50% share of the property due to her father9s (Chandrashekar) death, but the said Chandrashekar had preferred a claim and it was rejected as early as on

31.08.2013 during her lifetime and he did not challenge the order and the said order has attained finality. Hence, the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled 50% of the share in the property.

#15. Further, submitted that the appellant did not object to the judgment debtor mortgaging the property in favour of financial institutions. In this regard also, she has not challenged Ex.D-6/form of declaration by the judgment debtor mortgaging and creating a charge in Pragathi Gramina Bank on 08.01.2010. Therefore, submitted that the equity is not in favour of appellant, but in favour of respondent No.3, who paid 10 times more than the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 property9s value as per the Sub Registrar valuation in the year 2011. The appellant and respondents have not challenged the order of determining the appellant9s 1/3rd in the property. Respondent No.3 did not challenge the same because the executing Court has denied her request for claiming the landed property.

#16. Further, respondent No.3 has produced three documents which are the order dated 31.10.2013 in E.P.No.36/2011 rejecting the appellant9s father9s claim and ordering the sale certificate to be issued in favour of respondent No.3; the revised estimated market value as on

01.03.2011 issued by the Sub Registrar Office; and the revised estimated value as on 01.10.2023 in respect of the lands in question. Therefore, submitted that respondent No.3 has deposited amount 10 times more than the market value, which proves the fact that respondent No.3 is bona fide purchaser and the appellant is just causing the delay of sale proceeds. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013

#17. Further, submitted that the decisions relied on by the counsel for the appellant in AMBATTI NARASAIAH9s case (supra) are not applicable because the facts in that case arose out of Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC and not under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC. Also, the judgment of Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR is also not applicable. Further submitted that the judgment in C.S. MOHAN9s case is also not applicable due to the difference in factual matrix involved in the cited cases and in the present case. Therefore, with the above said submissions, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

#18. Upon hearing the submission made by both the learned counsels appearing for the appellant and respondent No.3/auction purchaser, the point that would arise for my consideration is as follows: <Whether, involved circumstances executing Court is justified in determining the share of 1/3rd only towards sale proceeds, but though has determined 1/3rd share towards the appellant?= landed properties, the case, - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013

#19. As discussed above, respondent No.2 herein has suffered decree for Rs.22,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01.04.2004 till realization from respondent No.2 herein. The said judgment and decree had attained finality, then respondent No.1 herein has filed execution in E.P.No.36/2010. The executing Court has proceeded with the sale and issued proclamation of attachment of suit lands and also issued sale warrant. Admittedly, the subject matter in the execution petition is landed property which was schedule property of one Sharadamma, who is mother of the appellant and respondent No.2 and wife of Chandrashekaraiah. Upon death of Sharadamma, the property was devolved into three shares i.e., appellant, respondent No.2 Chandrashekaraiah of 1/3rd share each. Respondent No.2 has suffered from money decree. The executing Court ought to have conducted an enquiry so as to satisfy the decreetal amount when the suit land was put into auction for sale whether the entire land or part of land would satisfy the decreetal amount. Therefore, on this intervening period, the appellant has filed I.A.No.5 under Order XXI Rule 59 of CPC - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 for stay of sale. proceedings and filed I.A.No.4 under Order 58 of CPC for determining her share in the petition schedule land.

#20. Therefore, the appellant is also having 1/3rd share in the petition schedule property. Therefore, when the executing Court has proceeded to sell the entire property for Rs.22,00,000/-, but whether the whole property is put for satisfaction or portion of property is sufficient for satisfaction of decreetal amount ought to have been determined by the executing Court. On 19.9.2011, when the appellant has filed two interlocutory applications i.e., I.A No.IV under Order XXI Rule 58 R/w Section 151 of CPC and I.A No.V under Order XXI Rule 59 of CPC and also filed advancement application, but the executing Court without staying proceedings before considering the applications filed under Order XXI Rule 58 r/w Section 151 of CPC, has proceeded further determining the share of appellant as well as putting sale in auction simultaneously. The executing Court by impugned order has determined 1/3rd share is correct, but ordering that the appellant is entitled to 1/3rd share in sale - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 proceeds only, but not in landed property the legality of which is to be ascertained on the principle of law laid down by the Hon9ble apex Court in the catena of decisions.

#21. The Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of AMBATI NARASAYYA VS. M.SUBBA RAO AND ANOTHER1 has observed at paragraphs No.7 and 8 as under: <7. It is of importance to note from this provision that in all execution proceedings, the Court has to first decide whether it is necessary to bring the entire attached property to sale or such portion thereof as may seem 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, in our opinion, is not just a discretion, but an obligation imposed on the Court. Care must be taken to put only such portion of the property to sale the consideration of which is sufficient to meet the claim in the execution petition. The sale held without examining this aspect and not requirement would be illegal and without jurisdiction. in conformity with

#8. In Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddy v. Pujari Padmavathamma and Ors.2, this Court after examining the scope of Rule 64 of Order XXI CPC has taken a similar view: (SCC p.340, para 3) 1 1989 Supp (2) SCC 693 2 (1977) 3 SCC 337, 340 - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 "Under this provision the executing Court derives jurisdiction to sell properties attached only to the point at which the decree is fully satisfied. The words 'necessary to satisfy the decree' clearly indicate that no sale can be allowed beyond the decretal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation. In other words, where the sale fetches a price equal to or higher than the amount mentioned in the sale proclamation and is sufficient to satisfy the decree, no further sale should be held and the court should stop at that stage."

#22. Further, the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR H.C. OF CALCUTTA AND OTHERS3 has observed at paragraphs No.10, 16, 17 and 18 as under: <10. At the outset, we would state that in proceedings for winding up of the Company under liquidation, the Court acts as a custodian for the interest of the company and the creditors. Therefore, before sanctioning the sale of its assets, the Court is required to exercise judicial discretion to see that properties are sold at a reasonable price. For deciding what would be a reasonable price, valuation report of an expert is must. Not only that, it is the duty of the Court to disclose the said valuation report to the secured creditors and other interested persons including the offerors. Further, it is the duty of the Court to apply its mind to the valuation report for verifying whether the report indicates reasonable market value of the property to be auctioned, even if objections are not raised.

#16. In Allahabad Bank v. Bengal paper Mills case4 dealing with a similar auction-sale of the company in liquidation, the Court observed that instead of sale by the liquidator in Company matters sale is required to be confirmed by the High Court so as to ensure that best possible price is realised upon the sale of the assets ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. b) The order passed in Execution Petition No.36/2010, dated 17.07.2012, by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet, is hereby set aside, so far as ordering the appellant to receive 1/3rd of sale proceeds. c) The order is confirmed with regard determining 1/3rd share in the landed properties. The appellant is entitled to 1/3rd share in the landed properties mentioned in the schedule. d) The respondent No.3 purchaser is entitled to get reimbursement of 1/3rd value of sale proceeds from the appellant out of the amount deposited in the executing Court. The sale certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 so far as the share of 1/3rd of appellant, is set aside and - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 confirmed only in respect of 2/3rd share in the petition scheduled property. e) Accordingly, the executing Court is directed to issue modified sale certificate. f) Draw decree accordingly. g) No order as to cost. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA para 1 to 19 PMP para 20 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [J DEEPA MUPPAIAH MATH VS. BADRINARAYANA LADDA S/O. NAND KISHOR LADDA]

02.03.2026 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER ON I.A.NO.2/2025. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed I.A.No.2/2025 under Section 151 of the CPC seeking correction of the case number as E.P.No.36/2011 instead of E.P.No.36/2010 in the judgment of this Court. This Court, by order dated 17.02.2025, disposed of the appeal. In the said judgment, the execution petition number is mentioned as E.P.No.36/2010. However, in the impugned order under challenge, the Executing Court itself has mentioned the execution petition number as E.P.No.36/2010, and the same is reflected in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant. Accordingly, E.P.No.36/2010 is reflected in the judgment of this Court. Along with this application, learned counsel for the appellant has filed a certified copy of the execution petition and the order sheet of the execution proceedings, wherein the execution petition number is shown as E.P.No.36/2011, filed on - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013

05.04.2011. Therefore, the correct execution petition number is E.P.No.36/2011. However, due to a mistake committed by the Executing Court in its order, the number is shown as E.P.No. 36/2010, and the same has also been reflected in the memorandum of appeal. Considering the above facts, and as per the order sheet and the execution petition filed before the Executing Court on

05.04.2011, the correct execution petition number E.P.No.36/2011. Therefore, in the judgment, wherever E.P.No.36/2010 is mentioned, i.e., in paragraphs 2, 16, and 31, it shall be read as <E.P.No.36/2011=. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2025 is allowed. Consequently, operative portion of the judgment in page No.31 at paragraph No.30(b) shall be as follows; b. The order passed in Execution Petition No.36/2011, dated 17.07.2012, by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet, is hereby set aside, so far as ordering the appellant to receive 1/3rd of sale proceeds. This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated

17.02.2025. - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3207 RFA No. 4123 of 2013 The Office is directed to furnish a certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE ASN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1