P.SUBRAMONIAN POTI, K.BASKARAN
DAKSHAYINI – Appellant
Versus
MADHAVAN – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.