Venkataraman, J.-This Full Bench has been constituted to resolve the conflict of observations in Bench decisions of this Court concerning the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Order 5, rule 19, Civil Procedure Code, relating to the service of summons.

The reference arises out of an application, E.A. No. 120 of 1960, filed by one Parasurama Odayar, the judgment debtorin O.S. 10 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif, Arni, to have it declared that the execution sale of his property which took place on 22nd July, 1959, in execution of the said decree was null and void. The property which was sold was about three acres in extent with a well and electric motor pump set. A sum of about Rs. 500 was due on the security of the property to the Government in respect of a loan which had been taken. The property was sold for a sum of Rs. 11 subject to the above encumbrance and the purchaser was one Seshadri Iyengar, the second respondent in E.A. No. 120 of 1960. The notice of sale sent by registered post was returned as refused and the subsequent notice sent through the Court for the hearing on 19th January, 1959 is said to have been affixed to the outer door of the house of Parasurama Odayar on 26th December, 1958 by the process server on account of the absence of Parasurama Odayar from the village. On 19th January, 1959, the notice in the execution petition was as follows:

“Respondent absent. Court notice affixed. Respondent called absent Set ex parte”.

The sale was fixed on 18th March, 1959 it finally took place on 22nd July 1959 and was confirmed on 28th August, 1959.

Parasurama Odayar alleged that he came to know of the sale only on 20th January, 1960 and he filed the application E.A. No. 120 of 1960 on 22nd January 1960 to have the sale set aside. He averred that he had no notice whatever of the sale and that the sale conducted without notice to him was void. He claimed that the property was worth Rs. 10,000 initially the upset price was Rs. 9,000 subject to the encumbrance of Rs. 500 and urged that the sale was conducted fraudulently and with a material irregularity and had resulted in substantial injury to him The application was resisted by the auction-purchaser. The learned District Munsif who enquired into the petition, rejected his contentions and dismissed the petition The judgment-debtor’s appeal to the learned District Judge also failed. The Cours below found that he had notice of the sale, that there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 5, rule 19, Civil Procedure Code, that since he had notice of the sale, he had to set aside the sale within 30 days under Article 166 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and that the sale could not be said to be void. The judgment-debtor preferred A.A.A.O. No. 5 of 1962 and it came on for hearing before Kailasam, J.

At the outset it was pressed upon the learned Judge that property worth Rs. 10,000 had been sold for Rs. 511. The learned Judge apparently felt impressed by the contention, but held that, even so, the application would have to be filed under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, within a period of thirty days from the date of sale as required by Article 166 of the Limitation Act of 1908. To get over that bar, it was urged on behalf of the judgment-debtor that the starting point of limitation mentioned as the date of sale in Article 166 should be construed as the date of the judgment-debtor’s knowledge of the sale, which was 20th January 1960 according to him. This contention was sought to be sustained by a reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harishchandra v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer1and State of Punjab v. Opaisar Jehan Begum2. Those were cases relating to the period within which the party dissatisfied with the award of compensation by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act could ask the Collector to make a reference to the civil Court. Where a party is not present at the time of making of the award and notice is not given to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document