Skip to content


Munivenkatappa Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 472 of 1983
Judge
Reported inILR1986KAR897
ActsLimitation Act, 1963 - Article 127; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 20, Rule 90
AppellantMunivenkatappa
RespondentVysya Bank Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateB.V. Balaji, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateB.R. Aswatharam, Adv. for Respondent-1
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....before the court itself and the court either will have to accept it or reject it. therefore the date of sale would be the date on which the court accepts the bid. therefore the starting point of limitation would be the date on which the court accepted the bid.;(b) civil procedure code, 1908 (central act no. 5 of 1908) -- order 20 rule 90 -- limitation for application starts from the date of acceptance of bid. - indian contract act (9 of 1872)sections 151 & 152: [k.n.keshavanarayan, j] bailment - clearance of imported good s-liability of customs authorities -pilferage of imported goods in possession of custodian - held, custodian is liable to pay duty of such goods to department. this does not indicate that customs authorities have no control over goods nor it would indicate that..........and accordingly it dismissed the petition. hence the revision by judgment-debtor-1.5. if the date of sale held on the spot i.e. 13-4-1981 is taken as the starting of limitation, i.a. no. 3 filed by judgment-debtor-1 on 25-6-1981 would be clearly barred by limitation as article 127 of the limitation act lays down the period of limitation 30 days and the time starts to run from the date of sale. but the question is what the words 'date of the sale' used in column no. 3 of article 127 means. similar provision had been made under the old limitation act in article 126. the old article 126 also lays down that the smiting point would be the date of the sale. this court in syed nabi sab -v.- sheik hyder alias amir sab, 1962 mys. l.j 962 has held that the starting point of limitation would.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kulkarni, J.

1. This is a revision by judgment debtor-1 against the order dated 20-11-1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Chickballapur, in Ex. Case No. 34/1980 dismissing I.A. No. 3 filed by the 1st judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C.

2. The decree holder-Bank sued out execution to recover the money and brought the property of judgment-debtor-1 to sale. The said sale was conducted on 13-4-1981. The final bid of the decree holder was accepted before the Court on 1-6-1981. On 1-6-1981 the matter was adjourned to 2-7-1981 for confirmation of sale. On 25-6-1981 judgment debtor-1 filed an application I.A. No. 3 under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C.

3. The decree holder raised a contention amongst others that the Petition was barred by limitation.

4. The said contention raised by the decree holder appealed to the executing Court and it held that the petition I.A. No. 3 tiled by judgment debtor-1 under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. was barred by limitation and accordingly it dismissed the Petition. Hence the revision by judgment-debtor-1.

5. If the date of sale held on the spot i.e. 13-4-1981 is taken as the starting of limitation, I.A. No. 3 filed by judgment-debtor-1 on 25-6-1981 would be clearly barred by limitation as Article 127 of the Limitation Act lays down the period of limitation 30 days and the time starts to run from the date of sale. But the question is what the words 'date of the sale' used in column No. 3 of Article 127 means. Similar provision had been made under the old Limitation Act in Article 126. The old Article 126 also lays down that the smiting point would be the date of the sale. This Court in Syed Nabi Sab -v.- Sheik Hyder Alias Amir Sab, 1962 Mys. L.J 962 has held that the starting point of limitation would be the date on which the executing Court accepted the bid and adjourned the case for confirmation of sale. In U. N. Mitra's Law of Limitation, 8th Edition, on page 1818 it is laid down as :

'An auction-sale is not complete until the presiding officer has accepted the bid and declared the purchaser.'

Under Order 21 Rule 84 C.P.C. now it is the primary duty of the Court to accept the bid or to reject the same. That it is the primary duty of the executing Court to accept the bid or to reject the bid, cannot be questioned under the Rules. An officer conducting the sale on the spot has no right to accept the bid. The final bid will have to be made before the Court itself and the Court either will have to accept it or reject it. Therefore the date of said would be the date on which the Court accepts the bid. Therefore, under these circumstances, the starting point of limitation would be the date on which the Court accepted the bid. The order sheet dated 1-6-1981 now produced before me reads as:

'D. Hr. by Sri SRS.

J. Dr. absent.

Sale conducted on 13-4-81 at spot. The final bid of the D. Hr. is accepted before Court. Confirmation by 2.7.'

Therefore it becomes clear from the entry in the order sheet that the final bid of the decree holder was accepted by the executing Court on 1-6-1981. Therefore the limitation would start in the present case from 1-6-1981. The application I.A. No. 3 under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. was filed on 25-6-1981. Thus it becomes clear that it has been filed within 30 days from 1-6-1981 when the final bid was accepted by the Court. Therefore the application I.A. No. 3 under Order 20 Rule 90 C.P.C. is in time.

6. Thus the view of the Trial Court that the application I.A. No. 3 is barred by limitation is wrong and therefore the order passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The revision is allowed. The Trial Court should now proceed with the Petition on merits.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //