TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired deposit, Article 127 of the Limitation Act now prescribes 60 days as the period within which such an application should be made. In absence of any separate period prescribed for making the deposit, as per judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Jammlu Ramulu (2001 (8) TMI 1371 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) the time to make the deposit and that for making the application would be the same. - High court committed grave error of law in not noticing the relevant provisions of CPC and the Limitation Act and in allowing the Writ Petition for re-consideration of the petition under Order XXI Rule 89, CPC. In absence of required deposit made by the judgment-debtor within the time mandated by law, such an exercise would be only an exerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quashing the impugned order of the Executing Court and remitting the matter back to the Executing Court for fresh disposal of judgment-debtor s application under Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC. 3. The moot question of law raised in this appeal does not require this Court to go into facts in any detail. The issue of law raised on behalf of the Appellant is whether the High Court could have ignored the settled law that under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 an application to set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 89, CPC has to be filed within 60 days from the date of sale and same is the period for making the required deposit. 4. On facts, it is sufficient to notice that after success in O.S.No.26/1969, the decree-holder instituted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the Appellant, the High Court erred in ignoring the relevant provisions such as Rules 89 and 92 of Order XXI of the CPC and Article 127 of the Limitation Act otherwise it would have come to the only possible conclusion that in absence of required deposit being made within 60 days, the Executing Court had no option but to reject the petition under Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Karan Gupta v. J.S. Exim Ltd. Ors. (2012) 13 SCC 568 and a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammlu Ramulu Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 71 which has been referred to and relied upon in the case of Ram Karan Gupta ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
