https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278349 An application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC to set aside an auction sale was treated as within limitation because the judgment-debtor had approached the court when a staff strike prevented acceptance of the decretal deposit, so the court machinery was not functioning for that execution work. Section 4 of the Limitation Act was applied on the basis of deemed closure during normal working hours, and the principle that an act of court should prejudice no one supported that approach. The later amendment to Article 127 was treated as procedural and not used to defeat an application already filed before it came into force; the rejection of the application and confirmation of sale were set aside. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jan 2019 11:03:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278349 An application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC to set aside an auction sale was treated as within limitation because the judgment-debtor had approached the court when a staff strike prevented acceptance of the decretal deposit, so the court machinery was not functioning for that execution work. Section 4 of the Limitation Act was applied on the basis of deemed closure during normal working hours, and the principle that an act of court should prejudice no one supported that approach. The later amendment to Article 127 was treated as procedural and not used to defeat an application already filed before it came into force; the rejection of the application and confirmation of sale were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 31 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278349