TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion sale held on August 19, 1969, for a sum of ₹ 28,000. Narayana Swami having died in the meanwhile, his legal representatives, the present appellants, filed an application under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 90 for setting aside the sale on various grounds. The Executing Court dismissed the application on March 28, 1973 but on an appeal preferred by the appellants the sale was set aside on July 31, 1974. The respondent filed a second appeal to the High Court of Karnataka. At the hearing of the second appeal the parties entered into a compromise with the leave of the Court, such leave being necessary since many of the present appellants were minors then and are minors even now. The Court granted leave and made an order in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Hukumchand . Bansilal and Ors. [1967]3SCR695. 2. Shri R.B. Datar learned Counsel for the appellants urged that there was no limitation on the power of the Court to extend time under Section 148, C.P.C. and that where a compromise had been made an order of the Court, it was certainly open to the Court to extend time under Section 148 C.P.C. He relied upon the decision of the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta in Marketing and Advertising Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Telerad Pvt. Ltd AIR1969Bom323 . Jadabendra Nath Mishra v. Manorama Debya AIR1970Cal199 . He distinguished the decision of this Court in Hukum Chand v. Bansilal. Shri Javali Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand urged that time should not be extended by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osited before the confirmation of sale, the judgment-debtors had the right to ask for an order in terms of Order XXXIV, Rule 5(1) in their favour. In this case an application under Order XXI Rule 90 had been made and therefore, the sale could not be confirmed immediately after 30 days which would be the normal course; the confirmation had to await the disposal of the application under Order XXI, Rule 90. That application was disposed of on October 7, 1958 and was dismissed. It is obvious from the order sheet of October 7, 1958 that an oral compromise was arrived at between the parties in court on that day. By that compromise time was granted to the respondents to deposit the entire amount due to the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application under Order XXI, Rule 90 had been dismissed the sale must be confirmed. We are of the view that in the circumstances it was not open to the executing court to extend time without consent of parties, for time between October 7, 1958 to November 21, 1958 was granted by consent of parties. Section 148 of the CPC would not apply in these circumstances, and the executing court was right in holding that it could not extend time. Thereafter, it rightly confirmed the sale as required under Order XXI, Rule 92 there being no question of the application of Order XXXIV, Rule 5 for the money had not been deposited on November 22, 1958 before the order of confirmation was passed. In this view of the matter, we are of opinion that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
