UDAI LAL Vs. SHANKAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision, by the auction purchaser, arises out of an execution matter. An auction was held by the executing court on 29 -5 -1980, in which the petitioner Udailal was the successful auction purchaser. The judgment -debtor filed an application under Order 21, Rule 89 CPC on 1 -7 -1980, i.e. after expiry of 30 days from the date of auction, but within the period of 60 days therefrom. The application was rejected by the executing court as time barred. The judgment -debtor's appeal to the court below has succeeded and the case has been remanded to the executing court, for construing the provision of limitation liberally and then to decide the question of condonation of delay in making the application, Aggrieved by this order passed by the appellate court, the auction purchaser has preferred this revision.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the judgment -debtor -respondent, has pointed out that Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been amended by Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 1976 (Act No. 104 of 1976), enlarging the prescribed period of limitation Under Article 127 to 60 days instead of 30 days as it existed earlier. It is urged that on this basis, the application made by the judgment -debtor, under Order 21, Rule 89 CPC on 1 -7 -1980 was clearly within the prescribed period of 60 days from the date of auction, and therefore, the same has to be decided on merits and the question of condonation of delay also does not arise. This contention has to be accepted. It is obvious that the amendment made in Article 127 of the Limitation Act, has been over -looked through -out. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that the application made by the judgment -debtor, under Order 21, Rule 89 CPC, was within the Limitation prescribed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963. That being so, the application has to be considered and decided on merits by the executing court, treating it as within time. No other question arising out of that application having been decided by the courts below, no occasion arises for consideration of the same in this revision.