Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.98 seconds)Set Umedmal And Anr. vs Srinath Ray And Anr. on 21 March, 1900
The same principle has been laid down by the Calcutta High
Court in Set Umedmal and another v. Srinath Ray and another
(2 ) where certain immovable properties were sold in
execution of an exparte decree and were purchased by the
decree-holder himself. After the confirmation of the sale,
the decree was set aside under S. 108 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1882 at the instance of some of
the defendants in the original suit. On an application
unders. 244 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882 having been
made by adecree, to set aside the sale held in execution of
the ex-parte decree the defence was that the application
could not come under s. 244 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1882, and that the sale could not be set aside, as it had
been confirmed. It was held by the Calcutta High Court that
the ex-parte decree having been set aside the sale could not
stand, inasmuch as the decree-holder himself was the
purchaser. At page 813 Maclean, C.J. stated :
Abdul Rahaman vs Sarafat Ali And Anr. on 24 August, 1915
The same opinion has been
expressed in Abdul Rahaman v. Sarafat Ali(2) in which it was
pointed out that as soon as an ex-parte decree was set
aside, the sale, where the decree-holder was the purchaser,
falls through and was not validated by a fresh decree
subsequently made.
Lal Bhagwant Singh vs Rai Sahib Lala Sri Kishen Das on 21 January, 1953
On behalf of the respondents reference was made to the
decision of this Court in Lal Bhagwant Singh v. Rai Sahib
Lala Sri Kishen Das. (4 ) But the ratio of that case has no
application to the present case. It should be noticed that
the decree in that case was affirmed at all stages of the
litigation except that the amount of
(1) 14 Calcutta Weekly Notes, 182.
Section 108 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1