Skip to content


Sankaram Pillai Vs. M.S. Ananthanarayana Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1944Mad313
AppellantSankaram Pillai
RespondentM.S. Ananthanarayana Aiyar
Cases Referred and Venkatalingama v. Venkatanarasimha A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- - the reason why the application, which was made by the judgment-debtor in the court below, was dismissed, was that the judgment-debtor who was called upon to furnish security under proviso 1 to order 21, rule 90, had failed to furnish such security. we are not prepared to accept this contention as well-founded......in the court below, was dismissed, was that the judgment-debtor who was called upon to furnish security under proviso 1 to order 21, rule 90, had failed to furnish such security.2. it is contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor who is the appellant here that there is an error of law in the order made by the lower court directing security to be furnished because before that stage the petition for setting aside the sale had been 'admitted.' according to the proviso referred to, the court may call upon the judgment-debtor (applicant) to furnish security before 'admitting' his application. the word 'admitting' in this provision of law has been construed in the decisions reported in narasimha pattamahadevi v. annan naidu a.i.r. 1940 mad. 624 and venkatalingama v......
Judgment:

Kunhi Raman, J.

1. The appeal is from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly dismissing an application made under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C, for setting aside a sale in execution. The reason why the application, which was made by the judgment-debtor in the Court below, was dismissed, was that the judgment-debtor who was called upon to furnish security under proviso 1 to Order 21, Rule 90, had failed to furnish such security.

2. It is contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor who is the appellant here that there is an error of law in the order made by the lower Court directing security to be furnished because before that stage the petition for setting aside the sale had been 'admitted.' According to the proviso referred to, the Court may call upon the judgment-debtor (applicant) to furnish security before 'admitting' his application. The word 'admitting' in this provision of law has been construed in the decisions reported in Narasimha Pattamahadevi v. Annan Naidu A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 624 and Venkatalingama v. Venkatanarasimha A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 509, as including all cases in which notice has been ordered to the decree-holder. The view taken is that when notice of application presented by the judgment-debtor is ordered to the decree-holder, then that petition is 'admitted' by the Court. In the present case security was ordered before the learned Subordinate Judge directed notice to issue to the decree- holder; but it is contended that on the date of the order directing security to be furnished the petition filed by the judgment-debtor had been numbered in the Court below and that the numbering of the petition must be regarded as amounting to admitting it. We are not prepared to accept this contention as well-founded. There is no authority in support of it and the contention seems to us to be opposed to reason. We need only point out that all the civil revision petitions and second appeals that are filed in this High Court are numbered before they are posted for admission. The fact that they are numbered does not mean that they are admitted at that stage. In these circumstances there is no substance in the only contention urged on behalf of the appellant and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.


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