TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an application to set aside a court sale could succeed on the ground that the property was not saleable, in the absence of any plea or proof of material irregularity or fraud and substantial injury; (ii) whether the revision before the High Court was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issue (i): Whether an application to set aside a court sale could succeed on the ground that the property was not saleable, in the absence of any plea or proof of material irregularity or fraud and substantial injury.
Analysis: The governing rule required proof of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, coupled with substantial injury. The sale challenge in substance rested only on an alleged absence of saleable interest, a ground not within the scope of Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court also noted that such a challenge, if at all available, would not lie at the instance of the judgment-debtor under that provision. The analogy of constructive res judicata reinforced the bar against raising a ground that could have been taken earlier.
Conclusion: The objection based on want of saleable interest could not sustain the setting aside of the sale, and the executing court's rejection of the application was restored.
Issue (ii): Whether the revision before the High Court was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The Court held that a revisional application is maintainable against an order of a subordinate court in its appellate jurisdiction where the order is not appealable, and that a revision may also lie against an otherwise non-appealable order. On that basis, the challenge to maintainability was not accepted.
Conclusion: The revision was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's order was set aside and the order of the executing court was affirmed, thereby upholding the court sale and leaving no further direction regarding possession.
Ratio Decidendi: A court sale cannot be set aside under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 unless material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale and resulting substantial injury are established, and a ground outside that rule cannot be used to invalidate the sale.
TaxTMI 
