POPOORU VENKATA NARASIMMA Vs. JAYANTI LAKSHMI NARASIHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A copy of the affidavit filed in support of the petition was not served on the other side.

(2.) Further the case of Mathuji v. Kondaji 7 Bom. L.R. 263 has not been followed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 415 of 1904 (Boddam and Sankaran Nair, JJ.), the decision in which case is subsequent to the decision in Civil Revision Petition No. 359 of 1902, where also it had been held that without an application (oral or written) within 30 days, a sale in execution could not be set aside under Section 310-A, Civil Procedure Code of 1882 (Order XXI, Rule 89).

(3.) The District Judge could not be said to have acted without jurisdiction or acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in deciding the question of limitation as he did, even if the above two decisions of this Court are erroneous.