S.RAMACHANDRA IYER
Valli Ammal – Appellant
Versus
Subramania Iyer – Respondent
These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of an appellate order declining to set aside an execution sale held under a mortgage decree. The mortgagor's application to set aside the sale was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that one of the petitioners was absent and the other did not tender any evidence on the application. An appeal was filed by the judgment-debtors to the lower appellate Court against the order refusing to set aside the sale. During the pendency of that appeal, the mortgagors deposited in the appellate Court an amount in conformity, with the requirements of Order 34 , rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, and prayed for the setting aside of the sale. It must be noticed that notwithstanding the fact that the petition for setting aside the sale had been dismissed by the executing Court, the matter was at large before the appellate Court in appeal. It would, therefore follow that there was no final order of confirmation of sale before the appeal was disposed of. It is clear from the terms of Order 34 , rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, that so long as the sale had not been confirmed, it will be open to the mortgagors to deposit the amount due together with the solati
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.