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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was barred by limitation and whether the court was to be treated as closed for the purpose of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 during the strike period.
Analysis: The application to set aside the auction sale was made after the prescribed period then appearing in Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but the judgment-debtor had approached the court when the staff strike prevented acceptance of the decretal deposit. The refusal of the court machinery to receive the money meant that, for the purpose of the relevant execution work, the court was not functioning. Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as amended, deems the court closed where during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day. The principle that an act of court shall prejudice no man supported treating the strike situation as a deemed closure. The later amendment to Article 127 was also treated as procedural and not available to defeat an application already made before the amendment came into force.
Conclusion: The application was not time-barred and was within limitation; the order rejecting it and the confirmation of sale were set aside.
TaxTMI 
