Skip to content


Ramraj Singh Vs. Rabi Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in63Ind.Cas.140
AppellantRamraj Singh
RespondentRabi Prasad
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1938), section 115, order xxi, rule 89 - sale in execution--deposit of decretal amount by judgment-debtor--application to set aside whether should be in writing-revision. - - those objections were actually filed on the 27th of october 1919. in the petition of objection it was distinctly stated that the judgment-debtor had applied to have the sale set aside and disputed the validity of the application. he has no reason to complain and this court should not, upon the technical reason which he puts forward, interfere in revision......penalty which is payable under order xxi, rule 89 of the code of civil procedure, for having an auction sale set aside. manifestly the object of that deposit was to have the sale set aside. no separate application was filed. on the 20th of september 1919 the court fixed the 15th of november 1919 for the disposal of the objections of the auction-purchaser. those objections were actually filed on the 27th of october 1919. in the petition of objection it was distinctly stated that the judgment-debtor had applied to have the sale set aside and disputed the validity of the application. the court decided against him and set aside the sale. he appealed and the appellate court also decided against him. it is urge on his behalf in this application for revision that as there was no written.....
Judgment:

P.C. Banerji, J.

1. This is an attempt by the decree-holder auction purchaser to have the order of the Court below set aside upon a technical ground. The property of the judgment-debtor, which was a fixed rate holding, was sold by auction on the 20th of August 1919. The case was to have been put up on the 20th of September 1919. On the 18th of that month the judgment-debtor filed an application, which is usually sailed a tender, for the deposit of the decretal amount and also of the five per cent, penalty which is payable under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for having an auction sale set aside. Manifestly the object of that deposit was to have the sale set aside. No separate application was filed. On the 20th of September 1919 the Court fixed the 15th of November 1919 for the disposal of the objections of the auction-purchaser. Those objections were actually filed on the 27th of October 1919. In the petition of objection it was distinctly stated that the judgment-debtor had applied to have the sale set aside and disputed the validity of the application. The Court decided against him and set aside the sale. He appealed and the Appellate Court also decided against him. It is urge on his behalf in this application for revision that as there was no written application before the Court in which the judgment-debtor had expressly asked to have the sale set aside, the Court ought not to have set aside the sale. This objection is in my opinion, untenable, because in the first place the application to deposit the money and the penalty of five percent. on the purchase-money must be deemed to be an application not only for the deposit of the purchase-money but also to have the sale set aside. When on the 20th of September 1919, the Court fixed the 15th of November 1919 as the date on which the objection of the auction-purchaser was to be disposed of, there moot have been some argument before the Court that the judgment-debtor applied to have the sale set aside and the decree holder, who was the auction-purchaser, objected to the application. The form of the order implies that there was an application to have the sale set aside. It was not necessary that the application must be in writing. It manifestly was orally made after the deposit of the decretal money and the penalty on the 18th of September 1919. I think the Courts below have come to a right conclusion, and this application must be rejected. The decree holder has got the full amount of his decree and he has also got five per cent. of the purchase money. He has no reason to complain and this Court should not, upon the technical reason which he puts forward, Interfere in revision. The application is dismissed with costs.


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