V.BHARGAVA
BAWAN RAM – Appellant
Versus
KUNJ BEHARI LAL – Respondent
( 1 ) I have heard learned counsel for the applicants in this revision by which the applicants challenge an order of an execution court dismissing an objection filed under Order XXI, Rule 90, c. P. C. because of the failure of the applicants to furnish security within time. The newly substituted proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C. by this Court lays down inter alia that
"no application to set aside a sale shall be entertained unless the applicant deposits such amount not exceeding twelve and half percent of the sum realised by the sale or furnishes such security as the Court may, in its discretion, fix, except when the Court, for reasons to be recorded, dispenses with the requirements of this clause. "
In this case, the sale was held on 14th February, 1959. The application to set aside the sale under order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C. had to be filed at the latest by 16th March, 1959, and either 12 1/2 per cent of the amount had to be deposited or security had to be furnished unless the applicants obtained an order dispensing with these requirements, The applicants, on 14th March, 1959, presented an application, praying that the requirements be dispensed with but that a
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.