SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(AP) 1058

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
Penugonda Varalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Nallamala Lakshmi Tayaru – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Y.V. Ravi Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, Naram Nageswara Rao, Advocate.

Judgment :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 30.01.2012 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram dismissing the application in E.A.No.104 of 2010 in E.P.No.55 of 2005 in O.S.No.45 of 2000 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 281 days in filing petition under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘the Code’, for short).

2. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, in brief, are as follows: `The property said to be of the revision petitioner/1st Judgment debtor (`the petitioner’, for short) was sold in an auction held on 24.03.2009 by the Court of execution. However, the petitioner filed an execution application under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code for setting aside the auction. However, as the said application could not be filed within the time of sixty days allowed under law, the petitioner had filed E.A.No.104 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of the delay of (281) days in filing the aforementioned application for setting aside the court auction sale of the E.P schedule property. The 1st respondent/Decree Holder (`the 1st respondent’, for short) and th









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top