Skip to content


Mathura Prashad and anr. Vs. Ram Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.33
AppellantMathura Prashad and anr.
RespondentRam Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 166 - auction-sale--deposit of money by judgment-debtor within thirty days--application to set aside sale beyond time--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rule 89. - - no application to have the sale set aside was made until the 12th of may and that application is clearly barred by time......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.....
Judgment:

Griffin, J.

1. 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 Code of Civil Procedure 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.


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