TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction purchaser--respondent No. 1, in Special Darkhast No. 8 of 1974. in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Bhir. 2. The auction purchase took place on March 25, 1975; and instead of depositing the decretal amount and the other required amounts, within 30 days from the date of the sale, the appellant No. 1 made an application on May 3, 1975, Exh.; 8, staring that he had brought the amount, on April 25, 1975; but the Court staff was on strike, during the period from April 25, 1975 and was on strike even on that day; and he could not deposit the amount due under the decree and he should, therefore, be permitted to deposit the decretal amount and the auction-sale should be set aside under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the court had the power to condone the delay; but that case has no application to the present case because the court itself was not closed when the deposits ought to have been made by the appellant No. 1 under Order XXI Rule 89. In fact even Section 4 had no application for the reason. 7. The learned Judge, however, failed to note that what applied to the present case was the Limitation Act, 1963; and under Section 5 of the Act, the power of the court to condone the delay is taken away, in respect of the applications under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which must include, according to the general rules of the interpretation of statutes, any application under Order XXI of the Code of Civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure. Although the matter is essentially a matter of procedure, for making an application to set aside auction sales, the period is prescribed for making the application. 10. One of the most well-known statements of the rules regarding retrospectivity is contained in the passage from the judgment of R.S. Wright J, in Athlumney, (1898) 3 Q. B. 551 :-- 'Perhaps no rule of construction is more firmly established than this that a retrospective operation is not to he given to statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matter of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amended Article 127, which is similar to Article 166, it must be hold that that article would apply to the application made by the Judgment-debtor in this case. 14. However, as it Is not disputed that there was a strike between the period 1st April 1975 to May 3, 1975; and the court itself passed an order that the money cannot be accepted till the strike was over, although technically speaking the court was open for the purpose of receiving money, it was in, fact, closed. 15. Section 4 of the Limitation Act, runs as follows :-- Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the clay when the court r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to be deposited under Order XXI Rule 89, it must be held that the situation felt within the ambit of the new explanation added to Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 19. This new explanation was added by the Joint Committee of Parliament to make it clear that if on any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day, the court shall be deemed to be closed on that day. 20. In the present case, though it was not closed for any part of the day for the normal business of the court, generally in my opinion, for the purpose of the application under Order XXI Rule 89, it was closed as the situation was intended to be covered by the deeming Explanation to Section 4. 21. Again, in Dharmsi Morarji Chemical Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|