9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of setting aside a court sale. 2. Interpretation of limitation period for filing an application. 3. Requirement of making a deposit as a condition precedent. Analysis: The case involves a revision against the order of the Additional District Judge regarding the setting aside of a court sale. The property in question was purchased in a court sale, and two applications were filed to set aside the sale by the judgment debtor and another private purchaser. The trial court dismissed the judgment debtor's application due to a missed deadline, but allowed the private purchaser to make a deposit within an extended period. The Additional District Judge reversed this decision, leading to the present revision. Regarding the interpretation of the limitation period, the applicant argued that the court's casual leave should be considered as a closed day, allowing for an extension of the deadline. However, legal precedents were cited to establish that the applicant should have filed the application and made the deposit on the next working day after the court's closure. The applicant's delay in taking action until the last day and failure to make the required deposit further weakened the argument for extending the limitation period. Moreover, the requirement of making a deposit as a condition precedent was highlighted. Legal authorities were referenced to emphasize that the deposit must be made on the same day as the application under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code. Failure to comply with this condition was considered a significant factor in upholding the Additional District Judge's decision to dismiss the revision application with costs. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Additional District Judge, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the limitation period and fulfilling the conditions precedent for setting aside a court sale. The revision application was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the applicant's counsel.
|
