9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to sale of family property in execution of maintenance decree due to delay in depositing decretal amount; Interpretation of limitation period under Order XXI Rule 89; Application of amended Article 127 of Limitation Act, 1963; Effect of court strike on depositing decretal amount; Interpretation of Section 4 of Limitation Act; Application of maxim 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit'. Analysis: The case involved a challenge to the sale of family property in execution of a maintenance decree due to a delay in depositing the decretal amount by the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor cited a strike as the reason for the delay, seeking to set aside the auction sale under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The auction purchaser contended that the delay application was time-barred under the unamended Article 127, which prescribed a 30-day limitation period for such applications. However, the Article was later amended to extend the period to 60 days, which became effective during the pendency of the appeal. The court highlighted the application of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, which allows for an extension if the court is closed on the last day for filing. The judgment emphasized that a court is not 'open' merely because it is physically open, especially in matters requiring the acceptance of deposits under Order XXI Rule 89. The judgment further discussed the interpretation of the new explanation to Section 4, which deems a court closed if it remains closed for any part of its normal working hours, even if technically open. The court applied this interpretation to the situation where the court could not accept the deposit due to the strike, deeming it closed for that purpose. Moreover, the judgment referred to the maxim 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit,' emphasizing that an act of the court should not prejudice any party. It highlighted the importance of justice and good sense in interpreting legal provisions, especially in situations like court strikes that hinder normal court operations. Ultimately, the court held that the application to set aside the auction sale was not time-barred and set aside the confirmation of the sale. The case was remanded for further proceedings in the executing court, emphasizing the need to consider the delay caused by the court strike and the application of relevant legal provisions. In conclusion, the First Appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs, based on the court's detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the delay in depositing the decretal amount and the interpretation of the limitation period under Order XXI Rule 89 in light of the court strike and the amended Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
|
