Mr.Vaithilinga Asari (Died) vs Mr.Sivapragas Chettiar (Died) on 18 March, 2019
Mool Chand Vs. Collector Jalaun and others
reported in AIR 1982 Allahabad 141;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (1.03 seconds)Documents citing
Mool Chand vs Collector, Jalaun And Ors. on 18 December, 1981
Shanmugham And Others vs Perumal Naicker And Others on 19 July, 1996
In (Mool Chand v. Collector, Jalaun), it was held that the provisions of Order 21, Rr. 84 and 85, C.P.C. are mandatory, and in the event of their non-compliance the execution Court or the officer conducting the sale has no other option but to re-sell the property. The period provided for making the deposit cannot be extended. Where the deposit is not made by the auction purchaser, it is not necessary for the judgment-debtor to file a petition for re-sale of the property, but there is an obligation and a duty cast on the execution Court or the Officer conducting the sale.
State Bank Of India vs Smt. Mohini Devi And Ors. on 9 October, 1998
21. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mool Chand v. Collector, Jalaun, AIR 1982 All 141, after holding the provisions contained in Rules 84 and 85 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to be mandatory, has held (page 143) :
Kudiyala Ramana vs Vattikolla Somaraju And Ors. on 2 January, 2003
In Ambati Raghavalu v. Mova Venkamma, Ambati Raghavalu v. Mova Venkamma, AIR 1962 AP 334, yet another Division Bench of this Court had arrived at a conclusion that failure to comply provisions of Order 21 Rule 85 C.P.C will make the
sale ineffective and me same view was expressed in Mool Chand v. Collector, Jalaun, .
1