9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of sub rule (2) of Rule 89 of Order 21 of the CPC, 1908 and the maintainability of an application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code.
Summary: 1. The appeal involved the interpretation of sub rule (2) of Rule 89 of Order 21 of the CPC, 1908. The decree holder filed a suit in 1951 against the husband of respondent No. 2 for money due on a Promissory note. The suit was dismissed initially but later decreed in 1966. Properties were attached and sold, leading to a legal dispute. 2. The appellant filed an execution for the amount due under the decree. Respondent No. 1 filed applications under Order 21 Rule 90 and Rule 89 of the Code. There were issues regarding the withdrawal of the Rule 90 application and the timeliness of the Rule 89 application. 3. The Court proceedings involved challenges to the application under Rule 89 based on non-maintainability. The Execution Court set aside the sale, leading to an appeal by the appellant, which was dismissed by the High Court. 4. The appellant's plea regarding the sufficiency of the amount deposited by respondent No. 1 was rejected. The main question was whether the application under Rule 89 was maintainable and correctly allowed by the lower courts. 5. The Court examined the interpretation of Rule 89(2) and its historical context. The application under Rule 89 was deemed valid based on the sequence of events and the withdrawal of the Rule 90 application. 6. The Court emphasized that an application under Rule 89 must be withdrawn before it can be prosecuted. The withdrawal of the Rule 90 application was deemed effective based on the actions of respondent No. 1. 7. The Court held that respondent No. 1's application under Rule 89 was rightly allowed. The appeal by the appellant was dismissed, emphasizing that technicalities should not be used to deprive respondent No. 1 of the properties purchased.
|
