1960 (5) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GAVA, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants in this revision by which the applicants challenge an order of an execution court dismissing an objection filed under Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C. because of the failure of the applicants to furnish security within time. The newly substituted proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C. by this Court lays down inter alia that "no a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that application was rejected the same day. The applicants did not either deposit the amount or furnish any security upto the 16th of March, 1959, when the limitation expired. Security was furnished on 21st March, 1959, but protection was sought on the basis of the order of the court dated 14th March, 1959, granting time to the applicants to furnish security by the 21st of March, 1959. The court h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e time within which the objection could have been validly filed and subsequent compliance does not save limitation as the court had no power of extending the time. Learned counsel, in this connection, drew my attention to a decision of a Full Bench of the Patna High Court, Brij Behari Lal v. Firm Srinivas Ram, AIR 1939 Pat 248 and urged that, on the principle laid down there it should be held that....
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
TaxTMI