application by a judgment debtor.
7 of 1977 while giving the benefit of Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code to the judgment debtor.
The said order is also under challenge before this Court in Special Leave Petition Civil No.
An application purporting to be under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code was filed on 28 5 1982.
After the dismissal of the objections under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code the executing companyrt granted time for moving the High Court till 22 5 1982 and the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the executing companyrt dismissing objections under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code stood dismissed on 21 12 1983.
It may be mentioned that even an appeal has been filed against the order of the executing companyrt dated 4 5 1982 dismissing the objections to the sale filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code.
Undoubtedly the sale took place on 25 5 1981 and even the objections, which were filed for setting aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code were dismissed on 4 5 1982.
The Judgment and Order was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. Judgment in Civil Appeal No.
The other objections of the auction purchaser, as to the maintainability of the application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code in view of the dismissal of the objections under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code were number decided since the High Court felt that the application under Order 21 Rule 89 was barred by time in view of the limitation provided under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, which provides as under Article Description of suit Period of Time from limitationwhich period begins to run 127 To set aside a sale in execution Sixty daysThe date of of a decree including any such the sale.
2647 of 1984 This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of Patna dated 26 4 1983 whereby the Single Judge set aside an order dated 28 5 1982 passed by the executing companyrt in Execution Case No.
