9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of the period of limitation for making a deposit to set aside the sale of immovable property sold in execution of a decree under Rule 89 of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Judgment Summary: The Supreme Court considered the sole question of whether the deposit to set aside a sale under Rule 89 should be made within 30 days from the date of sale as per Rule 92(2) or within 60 days as per Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court held that Article 127 governed the limitation period for making the deposit, following precedents. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of Rule 89 and Rule 92(2) and noted the amendment emphasizing the deposit requirement within 30 days. The Court highlighted the distinction between the periods prescribed for making a deposit and an application, emphasizing the legislative intent behind the amendment of Article 127. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to extend the period for making an application and not for the deposit, as evidenced by the amendment of Article 127. The Court rejected the argument that Article 127 should override Rule 92(2), viewing both provisions as prescribing time for different purposes. The Court held that the correct construction of Rule 92(2) leads to the conclusion that the time for making a deposit is 30 days, and Article 127 has no relevance to the deposit time. The Court disagreed with previous decisions holding otherwise and set aside the High Court's judgment on the question of limitation. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment on the limitation issue, and made no order as to costs.
|
