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

2023 Supreme(SC) 1249

ABHAY S. OKA, RAJESH BINDAL
Bhasker – Appellant
Versus
Ayodhya Jewellers – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sreegesh M.K, Adv. Ms. Neha Sharma, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Sharad Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Goel, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

(Abhay S. Oka, J.)

1. Leave granted.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

2. The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is what is the starting point of limitation for filing an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’).

3. The property subject matter of this appeal held by the appellants was sold in execution of a decree passed against the appellants in a public auction. The respondent is the purchaser of the property. The order of confirmation of sale in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 92 of Order XXI of CPC was passed on 16th July 2009. The sale certificate under Rule 94 of Order XXI of CPC was issued by the Executing Court to the respondent on 5th February 2010. On 27th July 2010, the respondent filed an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of CPC before the Executing Court. The said application was allowed by the Executing Court. The appellants applied for a review of the said order. The prayer for review was dismissed by the Executing Court. The appellants challenged the orders of the Executing Court by filing a Civil Re

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