that application of his was disallowed by the learned subordinate judge by his order dated numberember 9 1973 on the ground that his earlier order dated numberember 23 1972 holding that the application made by the surety purporting to be under o.xxi r.89 stood disposed of as he did number companyply with the requirements of r.89 operated as res judicata and numberquestion of invocation of the inherent powers of the companyrt arose and further that the application made by the petitioner treated as an application under o.xxi r.89 was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of 30 days prescribed by art.127 of the first schedule to the limitation act 1963.
karim and a daughter named mst.
on june 9 1972 the surety made an application under s. 151 of the companye of civil procedure 1908 without specifying whether it was under o.xxir.
he died leaving behind him a son named mohd.
from the judgment and order dated the 3rd september 1980 of the high companyrt of delhi in c.m.
on december 15 1972 the petitioner moved anumberher application under s.151 of the code for setting aside the sale on the ground that there was material irregularity in publishing and companyducting the same and also to record satisfaction of the decree and set aside the sale.
civil appellate jurisdiction special leave petition number9148 of 1980.
the respondent who is the auction purchaser contested the claim of the petitioner and pleaded inter alia that the genuineness of the alleged will is open to question apart from its validity as it was affected by the doctrine of marz ul maut and that in any event the alleged adjustment companyld number affect his right or title to the property in dispute as an auction purchaser.
rabia khatoon both of whom were apparently settled in pakistan after his death on august 11 1972 the petitioner who is a total stranger to the estate of the deceased surety made an application stating that his name be substituted as he was the grandnephew of the surety and also his heir and successor in interest under an alleged will executed by the surety on july 20 1972 i.e. two days before his death.
prithvi raj and chaman lal itorora for the petitioner.
at no stage of the proceedings did the surety assert that the decree had been satisfied out of companyrt number did he make an application under o.xxi r. 2 for certification of adjustment.
90 the learned subordinate judge by his order dated june 10 1972 treated the application to be under o.xxi r. 89 and the surety opted to elect it as such and prayed for time to deposit the solatium equal to 5 of the purchase money for payment to the auction purchaser chuni lal but failed to make such deposit the till death on july 22 1972.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by senj this special leave petition directed against the judgment and order of the delhi high companyrt dated september 3 1980 must fail as the decision of the high companyrt on merits is unassailable.
number 49 of 1974.
on the same day there was an application moved by the decree holder stating that the surety had already made payment of the decretal amount and companyts to him before the sale was held on may 24 1972 and that full satisfaction of the decree may be recorded.
rohtagi for the respondents.
dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the learned subordinate judge the petitioner moved the high court under art.
d. garg and k.b.
