Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
GRIFFIN, J.
Mathura Prashad & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Ram Lal & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-12-1910
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 to set aside a sale in execution of a decree. There was no application before the Court to have the sale set aside made within thirty days from the date of the sale. The case is, undoubtedly, a hard one, but the applicant has only to thank himself for the result. The application is dismissed with costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
