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

1956 Supreme(Cal) 107

S.C.LAHIRI
BHARAT CHANDRA BERA – Appellant
Versus
RAJENDRA NATH GHOSE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Harideb Chatterjee, Kalipada Sinha, KISHORE MUKHARJI

S. C. LAHIRI, J.

( 1 ) I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties in these cases at some length because I am of opinion that the questions I have to decide in these two Rules are of some importance. These two Rules have been obtained by the judgment-debtor in a proceeding for setting aside an auction sale held on 8-9-1952. The facts which are undisputed are as follows: one Nalini Bala Ghose obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 291/4/- against the petitioner and that decree was put into execution in Money Execution Case No. 25 of 1952. The property of the judgment-debtor was brought to sale and it was purchased on the 8th September, 1952 by a stranger named Rajendra Nath Ghose. The Civil Court remained closed for the Puja holidays from 17-9-1952 upto 20-10-1952 and reopened on 21-10-1952. On that date the judgment-debtor petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale by making necessary deposits. His case is that for the purpose of ascertaining the amount which he was required to deposit under Order 21 Rule 89, he engaged a clerk named Md. Ishaque who approached the execution clerk of the Court and le
















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