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

1910 Supreme(All) 57

GRIFFIN
Mathura Prashad – Appellant
Versus
Ram Lal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Griffin, J. - This is an application for revision of the order of the learned District Judge of Aligarh, dismissing the petitioners appeal under the following circumstances. The sale of the judgment-debtors' property took place on the 8th of April 1910. On the 21st April, the judgment-debtors deposited the amount required under Order XXI, Rule 89, but did not make the application to have the sale set aside until the 12th of May. It was contended before the Court below and is again contended here that the application to deposit the money was a sufficient application and that no further application was necessary. The learned District Judge observes: "In the application to deposit the money there is no prayer to have the sale set aside. No application to have the sale set aside was made until the 12th of May and that application is clearly barred by time." It is urged on behalf of the applicant that as the deposit was made within thirty days as required by Rule 92, the applicant had done all that was absolutely necessary. However, Article 166 of the first Schedule of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908) lays down a period of thirty days' limitation for an application under the CPC

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