3 filed a revision petition before the District Judge, Balia under the provisions of section 115 of the Code as amended by section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act 1978 with effect from August 1, 1972 .
The petition was allowed by the High Court holding that the case was governed by Rule 72 of Order 21 of the Code as it was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Amending Act came into force.
Another prayer made under Rule 89 of Order 21 of the Code was rejected on the ground that it had become infructuous.
Later on he made an application stating that the sale was liable to set aside as respondent No.
The executing companyrt upheld the plea of the judgment debtor, the appellant herein, relying upon sub rule 3 of Rule 72 of Order 21 of the Code and set aside the sale by its order dated February 20, 1979, since admittedly numbersuch permission had been obtained by the decree holder.
359 of 1973 on the file of the Munsiff East, Balia.
Against the decision of the District Judge respondent No.
The delay in filing that application was companydoned.
The District Judge dismissed the revision petition on October 13, 1980.
3 who was the decree holder had number obtained the permission of the executing companyrt under Rule 72 1 of Order 21 of the Code.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.4.1985 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No.
18 of 1986.
3 filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Allahabad.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The application under Rule 90 of Order 21 of the Code was dismissed as number pressed.
Aggrieved by the decision of the executing companyrt respondent No.
This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated April 9, 1985 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
Before the sale was companyfirmed, on August 12, 1978 the appellant filed an application for setting aside the sale under Rule 90 of Order 21 of the Code on several grounds.
In execution of the said decree the immovable property belonging to the appellant was brought to sale by companyrt on August 4, 1978 and at that companyrt sale respondent No.3 was declared as the successful bidder.
N. Kacker Amicus curie and B.S. Chauhan for the Appellant.
Jamuna Chaubey, respondent No.
3 herein obtained a decree for recovery of money of July 29, 1977 against the appellant Ganpat Giri in Original Suit No.
Sunil K. Jain for the Respondents.
2754 of 1981.
2754 of 1981 on the file of the High Court of Allahabad.
