https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286627 Order 21, Rule 89 relief for deposit in execution sale challenges was treated as distinct from a Rule 90 challenge, so a combined application was maintainable and need not be dismissed merely because another objection remained pending. Section 34 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act was treated as directory and intended for the debtor's benefit, capable of waiver; the composite decree was therefore not a nullity, and the absence of a formal default order was only an irregularity. The sale was nevertheless set aside for material irregularity because the valuation was grossly understated and the properties were sold as one lot rather than separately, causing prejudice and depressing the price. en-us Mon, 22 Mar 1943 00:00:00 +0630 Fri, 06 Mar 2020 10:46:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286627 Order 21, Rule 89 relief for deposit in execution sale challenges was treated as distinct from a Rule 90 challenge, so a combined application was maintainable and need not be dismissed merely because another objection remained pending. Section 34 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act was treated as directory and intended for the debtor's benefit, capable of waiver; the composite decree was therefore not a nullity, and the absence of a formal default order was only an irregularity. The sale was nevertheless set aside for material irregularity because the valuation was grossly understated and the properties were sold as one lot rather than separately, causing prejudice and depressing the price. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Mar 1943 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286627