Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for an application under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to set aside a sale in execution, the deposit must be made within 30 days from the date of sale under Order XXI Rule 92(2), or whether the period of 60 days prescribed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs the deposit.
Analysis: Rule 89 makes deposit a condition precedent to the making of an application to set aside a sale. Rule 92(2) expressly requires that the deposit be made within thirty days from the date of sale. Article 127 of the Limitation Act deals with the period for making the application itself and not with the deposit. The amendment enlarging Article 127 from 30 days to 60 days affected only the time for the application, while the amendment to Rule 92(2) addressed only the limited contingency of deficiency caused by clerical or arithmetical mistake. The language of the two provisions is clear and there is no inconsistency requiring judicial correction or supply of an omission.
Conclusion: The deposit under Rule 89 must be made within 30 days, and Article 127 does not extend that time.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute clearly prescribes separate periods for a deposit and for an application, the court must give effect to both provisions as written and cannot add words or treat the longer limitation period for the application as governing the deposit.