https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280631 Under the proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90 CPC, a judgment-debtor need not deposit the required security within the limitation period for filing an application to set aside a sale. The proviso was construed as requiring compliance before the application is entertained and decided, not as a bar that makes the application time-barred if the deposit is made later. The earlier single-judge view treating deposit within limitation as mandatory was overruled, and the later Division Bench view was followed. The matter was remitted so the applicant could comply with the proviso and the application could be decided on merits. 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 Under the proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90 CPC, a judgment-debtor need not deposit the required security within the limitation period for filing an application to set aside a sale. The proviso was construed as requiring compliance before the application is entertained and decided, not as a bar that makes the application time-barred if the deposit is made later. The earlier single-judge view treating deposit within limitation as mandatory was overruled, and the later Division Bench view was followed. The matter was remitted so the applicant could comply with the proviso and the application could be decided on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280631