Skip to content

Veerabhadra Pillai Vs. O.A. Narayanaswami Ayyar, Receiver and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad653
AppellantVeerabhadra Pillai
RespondentO.A. Narayanaswami Ayyar, Receiver and ors.
Cases ReferredSundaram v. Mamsa Mavuthar A.I.R.
- .....with the report. time, one.....

Abdur Rahman, J.

1. A preliminary objection has been raised that this revision is not competent. The petitioner made an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. This has been refused by the lower Court on the ground that he has no locus standi to make the application. The order will show that the Court has not passed any order setting aside or refusing to set aside the sale and it is these orders alone which are appealable under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil Pro. Code, If the lower Court's action, as Oldfield J. said in Sundaram v. Mamsa Mavuthar A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 157 consisted in a refusal to deal with the judgment-debtor's petition, a non-exercise of their jurisdiction must be held to be revisable since the decision was not a conclusion of law or fact but one in which the question of jurisdiction was involved. I would therefore overrule the preliminary objection.

2. The lower Court will report whether the entire property was sold in these proceedings or whether the melwaram interest alone was sold. The papers relating to proclamation and the order passed for sale may be sent along with the report. Time, one month.

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