PILLALA MARRI VENKATARAMAIAH Vs. SAJARJEET KESARIMAL FIRM
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PILLALA MARRI VENKATARAMAIAH
SAJARJEET KESARIMAL FIRM
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the
lower Court was justified in directing the judgment-debtor (petitioner) to furnish
security for the sale warrant amount after the petition, E.A. No. 742 of 1960 was
(2.) The contention of the judgment-debtor is that, E.A. No. 742 of 1960 filed
under Order 21, rule 90 and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, was numbered,
notice to respondent was ordered returnable by 10th December, 1960 and
that notice served and his advocate appeared on 10th December, 1960 and argued
that the security should be demanded. These facts were sworn to in an affidavit
by the counsel for the judgment-debtor and no counter-affidavit was filed. The
learned Subordinate Judge, evidently realising that he could not pass such an
order under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code after admitting the petition
and ordering notice, passed the order in question even without referring to the fact
that the counsel for the respondent appeared on that date and argued.
Aggrieved by the order directing the petitioner to furnish security, the judgment-debtor
filed this appeal.
(3.) Sri A.V. Krishna Rao raised a preliminary objection to the effect that an
appeal lies under Order 43, rule 1(j), Civil Procedure Code, only against an order
under rule 92 of Order 21, setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale. In the instant
case, the Court simply directed the judgment-debtor to furnish security but no order
was passed on the application dismissing it because of non-compliance with that
direction, and hence the appeal is incompetent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.