https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293342 The sale was upheld because the U.P. Encumbered Estates proceedings had already been quashed before the February 1939 sale, so the statutory execution bar was not operating; the later amendment and revived application were treated as fresh proceedings and did not retroactively invalidate the sale. Restitution under section 144 CPC was also refused because reversal of the compromise decree did not materially change the parties' position: the judgment-debtor had already defaulted, and the sale would have occurred in any event under the restored decree. Restoration of possession and mesne profits were therefore denied. en-us Wed, 21 Jan 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:53:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293342 The sale was upheld because the U.P. Encumbered Estates proceedings had already been quashed before the February 1939 sale, so the statutory execution bar was not operating; the later amendment and revived application were treated as fresh proceedings and did not retroactively invalidate the sale. Restitution under section 144 CPC was also refused because reversal of the compromise decree did not materially change the parties' position: the judgment-debtor had already defaulted, and the sale would have occurred in any event under the restored decree. Restoration of possession and mesne profits were therefore denied. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Jan 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293342