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

1981 Supreme(Ker) 200

P.SUBRAMONIAN POTI, K.BASKARAN
DAKSHAYINI – Appellant
Versus
MADHAVAN – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Reference has been made to the Division Bench because the learned single Judge who had occasion to hear this case felt that there was anomaly in the provision in 0.21 R.92 sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as it now stands despite the amendment of Art.127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976. A person who seeks to set aside a sale may do so under the provisions of 0.21 R.89, R.90 or R.91. The right under 0.21 R.89 is to be exercised by applying to have the sale set aside on deposit into court of amount sufficient to pay to the decree holder besides the commission of 5% to the auction purchaser. The Code of Civil Procedure did not specify the time within which applications have to be made under 0.2) R.89, 90 or 91. That was provided in Art.127 of the Limitation Act. The period was 30 days from the date of sale. When the Code of Civil Procedure was radically amended by Act 104 of 1976 the period for setting aside the sale which was 30 days earlier was enlarged to 60 days by amending the Limitation Act. Such amendment was made to Art.127 of the Limitation Act. Naturally therefore after that amendment the period availa


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