https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169718 Order XXI Rule 92(2) CPC does not itself prescribe a separate limitation period for the deposit required to set aside a sale of immovable property. Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs the time for filing the application to set aside the sale, and the statutory scheme was read as allowing the deposit to be made within that 60-day period. Rule 92(2) operates only to remove the court's discretion where the application and deposit are made within 30 days. The earlier view in P.K. Unni was not accepted, and a deposit made within 60 days with the Article 127 application is maintainable. en-us Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 19:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169718 Order XXI Rule 92(2) CPC does not itself prescribe a separate limitation period for the deposit required to set aside a sale of immovable property. Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs the time for filing the application to set aside the sale, and the statutory scheme was read as allowing the deposit to be made within that 60-day period. Rule 92(2) operates only to remove the court's discretion where the application and deposit are made within 30 days. The earlier view in P.K. Unni was not accepted, and a deposit made within 60 days with the Article 127 application is maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169718