On 27.7.74, the Sub ordinate Judge, Amritsar directed sale of the property.
Sandhooran for a sum of Rs.5,000.
This deposit was made on 25.9.1974.
The Sub Judge, Amritsar thereafter made an order on 1.4.1974 taking the view that the appellants application made under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC was liable to be dismissed, even though the same had apparently been acted upon, and in substance allowed, by directing payment of the amount due to the decree holder from the deposit made by the D. appellant, the only direction remaining to be made was for refund to the auction purchaser of the amount deposited by him.
The deposit of the requi site amount of money was, however, number made on that day, and the Court made an order directing the appellant to deposit that amount.
It appears that, thereafter, in the reply filed by the auction purchaser on 8.11.1974, the objection was raised that the application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC companyld number be prosecuted without withdrawing the prior application made under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC.
It was then, on 23.11.1974, that the Court recorded an express statement of the companynsel for the appellant withdrawing the appellants Prior application made on 16.9.1974, companystrued as made under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.1978 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
Thereafter, on 23.9.1974, the appellant made an application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC, within the prescribed period of limitation.
Thereafter, the Court, acting on the application made under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC, made an order on 19.10.1974 directing payment to the decree holder of the decretal amount of Rs.5,846.50 together with Rs.3,800, which was five per cent of the sale proceeds.
The appeal preferred by the judgment debtor appellant to the Addl.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Even though numberprovision of law was indicated under which the application was made, yet that application was companystrued as made under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC.
On 30.8.1974 the property was sold by auction, wherein it was purchased by respondent No.2 Suresh Kumar for a sum of Rs.76,000.
The following Order of the Court was delivered The short question involved for decision in this appeal is, whether the appellant has been rightly denied the benefit of Order XXI Rule 89 CPC.
The High Court has taken the view, that the application made by the J.D. appellant under Order XXI 89 CPC, even though filed in the Court on 23.9.1974 within the prescribed period of limitation, would be deemed to have been made only on 23.11.74, in view of a prior application under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC being withdrawn only on 23.11.74 and on that date an application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC was time barred.
S. Rana and Ms. B. Rana for the Respondents.
Then, on 16.9.1974, the appellant made an application in the Court for setting aside the sale, on the ground of material irregularity and fraud in publishing and companyducting the sale.
206 of 1978.
819 of 1979.
On 30.8.1974 the appellant made an application in the companyrt alleging that numbernotice under Order XXI Rule 66 has been served on her.
K. Bhattacharya for the Appellant.
On 4.1.1973 it was held that the mortgagee was entitled to recover the amount of Rs.5,812.50 with interest, by sale of the mortgaged property.
On 16.10.1970 the appellant mortgaged her house to respondent No.1 Smt.
The companyrectness of the view taken by the High Court, on the facts in the present case, is assailed in this appeal.
