Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.36 seconds)Article 127 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Dadi Jagannadham vs Jammulu Ramulu & Ors on 23 August, 2001
7. Now coming to Rule 92, sub rule (2) specifically stipulates
that the deposit should be made within 60 days of the date of the
sale. This is not a period of limitation as held by the Supreme Court
in Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu and others (2001)
7 SCC 71), but only a condition precedent to maintain the
application.
Mohan Lal vs Hari Prasad Yadav (Dayal, J.) on 13 May, 1994
In Mohan Lal v. Hari Prasad Yadav (1994)4
SCC 177) the Supreme Court held that the application under Order
O.P.(C)No.3722 of 2013 6
21 Rule 89 of the Code being an application under the provisions of
Order 21, Section 5 of the Limitation Act on its own language is not
applicable specifically. It further held that Section 148 of the Code is
not applicable for the simple reason that the time for making the
application under Rule 89 is not fixed by the court.
Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967
5. No interpretation is necessary to hold that the amounts
should be deposited in court because rule 89 in explicit terms says
so. In Tribhobandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal
(AIR 1968 SC 372) the attention of the Supreme Court was
invited to the judgments in [(Chathurvedula) Subbayya v.
Simha Venkata Subba Reddi & another (AIR 1935 Madras
1050)], Muthuvenkatapathy Reddy v. Kuppu Reddi & others
(AIR 1940 Madras 427), Laxmansingh Baliramsingh & others
v. Laxminarayan Deosthan & others (AIR 1948 Nagpur 127),
Rabindra Nath Banerjee v. Harendra Kumar Chakravarthy
(AIR 1956 Calcutta 462) and (M.H.Shivaji Rao v.
Niranjanaiah(AIR 1962 Mysore 36) which hold that if the
judgment debtor instead of depositing in court the amount specified
in the proclamation satisfies the claim of the decree older under the
decree, the requirement of Order 21 Rule 89 is complied with.
Though the Supreme Court did not examine its correctness as it was
unnecessary to decide the case it took the definite view that deposit
of 5% of the purchase money by the judgment debtor and mere
abandonment of the execution proceedings by the decree holder
are not sufficient for the court to set aside the sale. In other words,
if there is no full and final settlement of the claim under the decree,
the application under rule 89 is not maintainable, for which the
Supreme Court has no doubt.
Shiv Prasad vs Durga Prasad & Anr on 12 February, 1975
15. The provision in Order 21 Rule 89 sub rule (2) stares at
the judgment debtors. It provides that where a person applies
under Rule 90 to set aside the sale of his immovable property, he
O.P.(C)No.3722 of 2013 8
shall not, unless he withdraws his application be entitled to make or
prosecute an application under Rule 89. In other words, the
judgment debtor cannot be allowed to maintain an application under
Rule 89 and Rule 90 simultaneously. Rule 89 (2) has been
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Shiv Prasad v. Durga Prasad
and another (AIR 1975 SC 957). The court has observed thus in
paragraph 9.
Section 65 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Challamane Huchha Gowda vs M.R. Tirumala And Anr on 8 December, 2003
In Challamane Huchha Gowda v. M.R.Tirumala
[(2004)1 SCC 453] the Supreme Court has held that the
application under rule 89 need not be in a particular form and even
a memo with a prayer to set aside the sale is sufficient.