https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280631 The court interpreted the word 'entertain' in the proviso of Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C., emphasizing that compliance with the proviso should be completed within the specified timeframe for setting aside a sale. The court resolved conflicting interpretations by ruling that depositing the security amount at the time of presenting the application is not mandatory but necessary for consideration. Failure to comply within the timeframe does not render the application time-barred. The judgment allowed revision, set aside the lower court's order, and directed the executing court to allow the applicant to comply with the proviso before considering the application. en-us Wed, 27 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2019 12:09:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280631 The court interpreted the word 'entertain' in the proviso of Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C., emphasizing that compliance with the proviso should be completed within the specified timeframe for setting aside a sale. The court resolved conflicting interpretations by ruling that depositing the security amount at the time of presenting the application is not mandatory but necessary for consideration. Failure to comply within the timeframe does not render the application time-barred. The judgment allowed revision, set aside the lower court's order, and directed the executing court to allow the applicant to comply with the proviso before considering the application. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280631