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

1991 Supreme(Mad) 663

SRINIVASAN
V. S. Balasubramanian – Appellant
Versus
A. Mariammal and another – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:S.Subbiah, for Petitioner V.Manoharan, for Respondent No.1.

Judgment :-

This revision petition is not maintainable. It is against an order rejecting application to set aside a Court auction sale without numbering it. When the office raised objection as to the maintainability, learned counsel made an endorsement to the effect the petition in the Court below would fall under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure therefore, it was revisable. Secondly, the learned counsel raised the contention that petition was rejected by the Court below and it was not dismissed. According to him, only there is a dismissal of a petition, an appeal will lie and otherwise revision is the only remedy.

2. Taking the second contention first, it is seen from O.43, Rule 1(j) of the Code of Procedure that an order under Rule 72 or Rule 92 of O.21, Code of Civil Procedure setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale, is made appealable. In this case, the order is one of rejection of the application even at the threshold. That certainly amount in law to refusal though it is one of rejection in form. The rule refer to ‘dismissal’ or ‘rejection’. Hence, the expression ‘refusing’ to set aside the sale cover the ‘rejection’ of the application without numbering the same and





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