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

1957 Supreme(All) 131

V.D.BHARGAVA
NAND LAL – Appellant
Versus
MT. SIDDIQUAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Balbadra Sahai, Kedarnath, M.H.BEG, O.N.MEHROTRA

V. D. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision under Section 115 C. P. C. by an auction-purchaser.

( 2 ) ON 4-11-53 it was ordered that sale should take place on 23-12-53 of the property in dispute. On 23-12-53 sale of the property was held and it was purchased by the auction-purchaser applicant. On that day he deposited 25 per cent, of the purchase money under Order 21 Rule 84. The balance of the purchase money he had to deposit within fifteen days from the date of the sale, i. e. the deposit should have been made by 7-1-54 at the latest, as required by Rule 85 of order 21. On 6-1-54, instead of depositing the money, the auction-purchaser prayed for further extension of time to deposit the money till 23-1-54. The court extended the time only by ten days. On 15-1-54 the remaining amount was deposited. On 23-1-54 the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was granted. On 29-1-54, i. e. after the confirmation of the sale, an application was moved- that since the money had not been deposited within the statutory period of fifteen days, as required under Order 21 Rule 85 the sale should be set aside, and it is this application which has given rise to this application





























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