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

1963 Supreme(All) 130

M. C. DESAI, R. A. MISRA
FIRM MOHAMMAD SANA ULLAH AND SONS – Appellant
Versus
FIRM HAJI RAHIM BUX AND SONS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Bashir Ahmed, SHAFIQ RAHMAN

DESAI, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for certificates mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 133 (1) of the Constitution. The applicants are decree-holders auction-purchasers. The judgment-debtors, who are the opposite parties, applied under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, for the setting aside of a sale of their house valued at more than Rs. 20,000/ -. They did not give any security as required under proviso (b) to Rule 90 of Order 21. But after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing an objection they applied to the executing Court for dispensing with the security. This Court held that their application for the security being dispensed with was in order. The executing Court thereupon dispensed with the security but subsequently, on an objection by the applicants, it dismissed the objection of the judgment-debtors on the ground that it was not accompanied by security and the application for dispensing with the security had been filed after the expiry of time allowed for filing the objection. Thereupon the judgment-debtors filed an appeal which was allowed by this Court and it is that order of the Court that is sought to be appealed from. This Cour




















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