9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Period of limitation for making a deposit in an application to set aside the sale of immovable property under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 2. Interpretation of Order XXI Rule 92(2) CPC and Article 127 of the Limitation Act. Summary: Issue 1: Period of Limitation for Making a Deposit The primary question in this appeal was whether the period of limitation for making a deposit in an application to set aside the sale of immovable property under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC is 30 days from the date of sale (as prescribed in Order XXI Rule 92(2) CPC) or 60 days from the date of sale (as prescribed in Article 127 of the Limitation Act). Issue 2: Interpretation of Order XXI Rule 92(2) CPC and Article 127 of the Limitation Act - Facts: A decree was obtained on 25th February 1980, and the property was sold on 22nd November 1982. An application to set aside the sale was filed on 21st January 1983, the 59th day after the sale, along with the prescribed deposit. - Lower Courts' Decisions: The executing court dismissed the application for not making the deposit within 30 days. However, the appeal was allowed, and the sale was set aside. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh upheld this decision, harmonizing the two provisions and giving the benefit of the enlarged period of limitation under Article 127 of the Limitation Act. - Supreme Court Precedents: The Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Basavantappa v. Gangadhar Narayan Dharwadkar, which endorsed a harmonious construction of the two provisions. However, in P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries, the Supreme Court held that the limitation period for making a deposit under Order XXI Rule 89 is 30 days, and Article 127 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes 60 days for filing an application, does not affect this period. - Arguments: Mr. Narasimha argued that the legislature did not extend the period for making the deposit, even though it extended the time for making an application. Mr. Bisaria supported the impugned judgment, arguing that there was an apparent conflict and that the courts must interpret the provisions to give effect to the legislature's intention. - Court's Analysis: The Court emphasized that the legislature's intention was to extend the time for making deposits, as evident from the Statement of Objects and Reasons. The Court noted that Order XXI Rule 89 CPC does not prescribe any period for making a deposit, and Article 127 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period for filing an application. The Court concluded that if the deposit is made within 30 days, the court has no discretion but to set aside the sale. However, if the deposit is made within 60 days, it is within the court's discretion to entertain the application. - Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that there is no different period of limitation for making deposits and filing applications to set aside sales. The view expressed in P.K. Unni's case was found incorrect. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld. Final Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the period for making a deposit in an application to set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC can be extended to 60 days, aligning with Article 127 of the Limitation Act. There was no order as to costs.
|
