it appears however that the companyrt did number record an order of withdrawal in miscellaneous case number 3/1967.
a direction was given to do pairevi for fresh service of numberice on the opposite party namely the decree holder and the judgment debtor.
the appellant had filed a suit in the year 1951 against the husband of respondent number 2 for realization of certain sums of money due on a promissory numbere.
on grant of special leave by this companyrt the present appeal was presented.
the prayer in this petition was also for the return of the said sum of money.
appeals by special leave from the judgment order dated the 20th january 1971 of the allahabad high companyrt in f.a.number 443 of 1968.
the amount as was necessary to be deposited for the setting aside of the scale under rule 89 was deposited in the execution companyrt by respondent number1 in his application under order 21 rule 89 of the companye a statement was made by respondent number 1 the applicant has also given an application under order 21 rule 90 and the applicant withdraws the same.
sultan singh and r. p. agarwala for the respondents.
the period of 30 days from the date of sale expired during holidays.
70000/. the original defendant died during the pendency of the first appeal in the high companyrt.
the further statement was that the applicant number withdraws the application under order 21 rule 90 and does number want to press the same.
the first lot was sold for a sum of rs.
in spite of the attachment he sold the properties in two lots.
substituted.
hardayal hardy janardan sharma and jitendra sharma for the appellant.
certain properties belonging to the husband of respondent number2 were directed to be attached before judgment by the high companyrt.
ultimately the case was number proceeded with on 9 3 1968.
steps were taken but on 10.2.1968 it was found that service of numberice on the judgment debtor opposite darty number2 was number sufficient.
the execution companyrt allowed the application of respondent number 1 under order 21 rule 89 of the companye and set aside the sale.
16000/ with the leave of the execution companyrt.
7580/ on 30 7 1956 to one smt.
on that date further steps were taken by respondent number1 for service of numberice on the opposite parties.
the companyts in the suit and the appeal together with the companyts of the execution.
eventually on 9.3.1968 the advocate for respondent number1 made an endorsement on the back of the application filed under order 21 rule 90 of the companye sir in view of application dated 1.1.68 in our proceeding number1 of 1968 the applicant does number want to prosecute it.
in the said execution the attached properties were sold and purchased by the appellant on 29.11.1957 for rs.
the appellant filed execution number 12/ 1967 in the saharanpur court for realization of rs.
it was only then that miscellaneous case number 3/1957 was dismissed by execution companyrt on 9.3.1968.
respondent number 1 on the re opening date i.e. on 1.1.1968 instituted miscellaneous case number 1/1968 by an application made under order 21 rule 89 of the companye.
his widow was.
on the same date i.e. on 1.1.1968 respondent number 1 also filed a separate application stating therein that he had filed an application under order 21 rule 90 of the companye for cancellation of the auction held on 29 11 1967 which was pending and that he had filed on application under order 21 rule 89 of the companye also.
the appellant filed first appeal number 122/1954 in the allahabad high companyrt.
the remaining attached properties were sold in the second lot to the first respondent on 30.11.57 for rs.
in substance the only objection taken by the appellant to resist the said application was a plea of its number maintainability in view of the provision of law companytained in sub rule 2 of rule 89.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 998 of 1971.
3528.10p.
the first respondent filed on 12 12.1967 an application under order 21 rule 90 of the companye for setting the sale aside.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by untwalia j. in this appeal by special leave of this companyrt is involved the interpretation and true meaning of subrule 2 of rule 89 of order 21 of the companye of civil procedure 1908 hereinafter called the companye.
11795/ the amount due under the decree rs.
the first respondent.is the purchaser of a major portion of the property sold in execution of the appellants decree against respondent number 2.
subadhara devi.
the appellants appeal against the said order was dismissed by a learned single judge of the allahabad high court.
this application was registered as miscellaneous case number 3/1967 in execution case number 12/1967.
a sum of rs 2000/ by way of security had been deposited by respondent number1 while making that application.
miscellaneous case number 1/1968 proceeded to disposal.
the suit was dismissed by the trial judge of saharanpur.
the decree holder is the appellant.
the first appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed against the substituted defendant respondent on 25.3.1966.
in the usual companyrse that case was put up on 6.1.1968 when respondent number 1 and his companynsel were present.
