Skip to content


Bakhsho Vs. Pakhar Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1233 of 1984 and Civil Misc. No. 2239-C-II of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1985P& H322
ActsLimitation Act - Sections 5 and 14; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 43, Rule 1
AppellantBakhsho
RespondentPakhar Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
.....on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept..........district judge held that the appeal against the order of the executing court, confirming the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser was not maintainable. the appeal was consequently dismissed. the petitioner has filed the present composite revision against the order of the additional district judge dated 12-4-1984 and the executing court dated 22-12-1983. the petitioner has moved civil miscellaneous no. 2239-c-ii of 1984 under ss. 5 and 14 of the limitation act, for condonation of delay in filing the civil revision against the order of the executing court.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned additional district judge has wrongly held that the appeal against the order of the executing court, confirming the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Pakhar Singh obtained a decree for Rs. 16,374/- with the future interest against Bakhsho petitioner. In execution of the decree, the land of the petitioner was auctioned. Balbir Singh respondent gave the highest bid for Rs. 42,000/-. No objections were filed against the auction. The executing Court, vide order dated 22-12-1983, confirmed the sale of the land in favour of Balbir Singh, respondent. A cheque of Rs. 18,600/- was ordered to be issued in favour of the decree-holder. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of the executing Court dated 22-12-1983, confirming the sale of the land in favour of the auction purchaser which was disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated 12-4-1984. The Additional District Judge held that the appeal against the order of the executing Court, confirming the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser was not maintainable. The appeal was consequently dismissed. The petitioner has filed the present composite revision against the order of the Additional District Judge dated 12-4-1984 and the executing Court dated 22-12-1983. The petitioner has moved Civil Miscellaneous No. 2239-C-II of 1984 under Ss. 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the Civil Revision against the order of the executing Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly held that the appeal against the order of the executing Court, confirming the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser is not maintainable and in support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the provisions contained in O. 43, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Cl.(j) of O. 43, R. 1 reads:--

'APPEALS FROM


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