27267/90p.
this view was accepted by the division ben which held that there was a valid deposit by bhagwandas rameshwar prasad for setting aside the sale.
on 17th january 1966 respondent 18 babulal one of the judgment debtors made a 10 277sci/78 application in the companyrt of district judge sagar under order 21 rule 90 civil procedure companye for setting aside the sale.
the learned single judge found the the application under order 21 rule 89 was made on behalf four judgment debtors viz.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2337 of 1968 from the judgment and order dated the 2nd may 1968 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in l.p.a.
the appellant auction purchaser resisted the application filed by the judgment debtors under order 21 rule 89 on the ground that as an application under order 21 rule.
29567/90p.
17th respondent herein in execution of a money decree in her favour against respondents 1 to 16 and 18 herein sold a house belonging to the judgment debtors on 8th january 1966.
the decree holder filed an application for granting a certificate of fitness which the high companyrt granted by its order dated 18th september 1968.
90 was already pending the application under rule 89 is number maintainable.
bittibai the.
babulal rikhilal bhagwandas rameshwar prasad.
in pursuance of the certificate this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
the judgment debtors filed an appeal to the high companyrt of madhya pradesh and the learned single judge who heard the appeal held that the application dated 17th january 1966 under order 21 rule 90 was a bar to the maintenance of the application dated 7th february 1966 under order 21 rule 89 and dismissed the appeal of the judgment debtors on 24th february 1967.
3 6 7 15 17 18.
2300/ as compensation totalling in all rs.
it was purchased in the companyrt auction by the appellant herein.
the trial companyrt by an order dated 9th august 1966 held that since the application of the judgment debtors under order 21 rule 90 was pending the application under order 21 rule 89 was liable to be dismissed as number companypetent.
the judgment debtors filed a letters patent appeal to a division bench of the madhya pradesh high companyrt.
was deposited.
on 7th february 1966 an application was filed under order 21 rule 89 by babulal the 18th respondent on behalf of himself and respondents 1 4 and 7 and the decretal amount of rs.
s. khanduja and r. k. shukla for respondents number.
and rs.
the division bench allowed the appeal of the judgment debtors and set aside the judgment of the companyrts below on 2nd may 1968.
it further held that the application filed by in judgment debtor babulal dated 7th february 1966 was number a proper application under order 21 rule 89.
5 8 to 14 16.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kailasam j. this appeal is by the auction purchaser on certificate of fitness granted by the high companyrt of madhya prades against its order setting aside the decisions of single judge and the district judge and directing the district judge to deal with the application under order 21 rule 89 civil procedure companye filed by the judgment debtors bhagwandas and rameshwar prasad on 7th february 1966.
number 7 of 1967 .
the decree holder smt.
l. sanghi and k. j. john for the appellant.
1 2 4.
ex parte for respondents number.
