https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272909 Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 cannot be used to reopen a consciously decided legal conclusion merely because it is alleged to be wrong in law; only an error apparent on the face of the record justifies review, so the review was dismissed. In execution proceedings, objections to sale irregularity under Order XXI Rule 90 and objections based on a statutory bar to sale were both within the court's jurisdiction, but a sale could not be set aside without a finding of substantial injury caused by the irregularity. As no such finding was recorded, and the statutory provisions were held not to bar the sale in the manner contended, the order setting aside the sale was unsustainable and the executing court's confirmation was restored. en-us Thu, 24 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2018 14:36:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272909 Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 cannot be used to reopen a consciously decided legal conclusion merely because it is alleged to be wrong in law; only an error apparent on the face of the record justifies review, so the review was dismissed. In execution proceedings, objections to sale irregularity under Order XXI Rule 90 and objections based on a statutory bar to sale were both within the court's jurisdiction, but a sale could not be set aside without a finding of substantial injury caused by the irregularity. As no such finding was recorded, and the statutory provisions were held not to bar the sale in the manner contended, the order setting aside the sale was unsustainable and the executing court's confirmation was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272909