Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.Vijayakumar, J
Morris Raj – Appellant
Versus
Reetha Mary – Respondent
ORDER :
The instant revision petition has been filed by the judgment debtor in O.S.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Eraniel challenging the dismissal of an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 of C.P.C to condone the delay of 539 days in filing an application under Order 21 Rule 90 of C.P.C.
(A) Factual Matrix:
2. The first respondent in the revision petition has filed the above said suit for the relief of recovery of money based upon a pronote dated 09.01.2004. The suit was decreed exparte on 28.10.2005. The decree holder had filed E.P.No.51 of 2006 to attach and bring the property for sale. The sale was conducted on 06.08.2007. The brother of the decree holder was the sole bidder and he was declared as the successful bidder on the said date. The sale was confirmed on 23.08.2007 and a sale certificate was issued on 02.05.2008. The auction purchaser had filed E.A.No.233 of 2008 for taking delivery of the property. The judgment debtor had filed E.A.No.43 of 2009 to condone the delay in filing an application and E.A.No.44 of 2009 under Order 21 Rule 90 of C.P.C to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity. Both
The court affirmed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to applications under Order 21 Rule 90 of the CPC, emphasizing the need for timely objections in execution proceedings.
The main legal point established is that an auction sale can be set aside if there are substantial irregularities and fraud, and the application to set aside the sale was filed within the limitation ....
The executing court must ensure only necessary property is sold to satisfy a decree, and dismissal of a claim under Order XXI Rule 58 does not bar a subsequent application under Order XXI Rule 90 for....
The court emphasized the application of Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC in cases of substantial irregularities causing injury to the judgment-debtor and cited legal precedents to support its decision.
whether Section 35 of the Act is mandatory or directory the sale held in violation of the said provision is only illegal but not a nullity and therefore, it can be set aside only in the manner and th....
![Sadachi [died] vs P.C. Mariappan [died] - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2528](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_1.png)
The sale of property in execution of a decree must comply with procedural rules, only necessitating sufficient property to satisfy the decree amount, failing which the sale is invalid.
Execution sales must adhere to the limitations set by procedural rules to ensure justice, with only sufficient property sold to satisfy the decree amount.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
