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

1997 Supreme(Ker) 133

P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN
Rajarethna Naikkan – Appellant
Versus
Parameswara Kurup – Respondent


Judgment :-

Balasubramanyan, J.

This revision is by the judgment debtor. In execution of a decree for money against him, the respondent-decree holder brought the property to sale and purchased the same in court auction. The judgment debtor filed an application under O. XXI R. 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale. That application was filed out of time with the result that the executing court dismissed that application. The judgment debtor filed CMA 243 of 1995 before this court challenging the dismissal of that application. This court by judgment dated 28.3.1996 agreed with the finding of the executing court and affirmed the dismissal of the application under O. XXI R.90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before this Court an attempt was made to contend on behalf of the judgment debtor that the application for setting aside the sale though out of time as an application under O. XXI R.90 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable under S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to be treated as one under that provision. This court noticed that the application in question was made by the judgment debtor only under O.XXI R.90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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