P K UNNI Vs. NIRMALA INDUSTRIES
LAWS(SC)-1990-2-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on February 20,1990

P.K.UNNI Appellant
VERSUS
NIRMALA INDUSTRIES Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. DEOKI NANDAN AGGARWAL [LAWS(SC)-1991-9-23] [RELIED ON]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BHANDARI MACHINERY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1998-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS. KOHINOOR DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS [LAWS(GJH)-1993-4-17] [RELIED ON]
SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1994-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHNAZ AYURVEDICS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER GAUTAM VS. STATE [LAWS(HPH)-1992-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-4-192] [REFERERD TO]
NIRMAL CHANDRA SINHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1999-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH TRADERS KIRANAAND GENERAL MERCHANTS VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KARIMNAGAR [LAWS(APH)-2001-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
S BHEEM PRASAD VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2008-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA BAI WD/O MOHANLAL VS. KRISHANLAL S/O NANDLAL [LAWS(MPH)-1990-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PYARILAL KASAM MANJI AND COMPANY [LAWS(ORI)-1991-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
S RAMA MOHAN RAY VS. A KISHORE CHANDRA PATRA [LAWS(ORI)-1994-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
SYED GAFAR VS. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1997-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
IDL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2000-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
NANHI BAI VS. NETRAM [LAWS(MPH)-2001-3-54] [REFERRED]
K L R ATHAPPA CHETTIAR VS. G R RAMASETHU [LAWS(MAD)-1993-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VS. PRAFULLA KUMAR ROYCHOWDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-2004-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
JAGJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-86] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIJEE TRADING COMPANY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
DEVINENI DURGAMBA VS. RAJ KUMAR FINANCIERS VIJAYAWADA [LAWS(APH)-1998-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
BIRUDUVOLU HARANADHA REDDY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2001-7-74] [REFERRED TO]
DEVAIAH V VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARIMNAGAR [LAWS(APH)-2001-11-54] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMA CHARAN AUDDY VS. BIMALA BALA SEN [LAWS(CAL)-1992-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
LOHIA JUTE PRESS P LTD VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2002-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
SRIPAL CHINCHAWADE VS. ADAPPA BABU MOGADUM [LAWS(KAR)-1995-3-19] [FOLLOWED ON]
THANGAMMAL VS. K DHANALAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-1978-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
THINA BOOMI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1999-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
JAYPRAKASH S O RAOSAHEB SALUNKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITED VS. RANIP NAGARPALIKA [LAWS(SC)-1999-11-94] [REFERRED TO]
DADI JAGANNADHAM VS. JAMMULU RAMULU [LAWS(SC)-2001-8-160] [REFERRED .]
DELHI FINANCIAL CORPN VS. RAJIV ANAND [LAWS(SC)-2004-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA PANCHAL VS. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NCB [LAWS(SC)-2009-2-134] [REFERRED TO]
BANKA DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1992-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
MALABAR PALACE VS. KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION [LAWS(KER)-2001-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
SHIRISH FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT VS. M SREENIVASULU REDDY [LAWS(BOM)-2001-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAM HOME FINANCE LIMITED VS. TAHSILDAR HOSUR [LAWS(MAD)-2006-11-303] [REFERRED TO]
JAYRAM TOLAJI SHINDE VS. SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT [LAWS(BOM)-2010-4-9] [REFERRED TO [ 27 ]]
JAYAKAR JOSEPH VS. B RAVEENDRA BOSE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-426] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN KUMAR VS. GRAM PANCHAYAT [LAWS(P&H)-1992-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR PRASAD SAHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1993-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
JANTA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1995-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1995-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST LUDHIANA VS. BALRAJ SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2001-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHAND SAINI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
D K CHAPLOT VS. REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
A K AHLAWAT VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR STATE CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. RAJANI RANJAN SAHAU [LAWS(PAT)-2005-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMAN BUX VS. SUBODH SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2009-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KARAN GUPTA VS. J. S. EXIM LTD [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
BHANU SHANKAR VS. VIJAY SHANKAR [LAWS(MPH)-2012-11-132] [REFERRED TO]
SOM LAL VS. VIJAY LAXMI [LAWS(P&H)-2006-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2002-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
A YADAGIRI VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER [LAWS(APH)-2013-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VS. POONGAVANAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-430] [REFERRED TO]
BALADEV SAHU & SONS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. SUMATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-444] [REFERRED TO]
DR.VINAY KUMAR S/O SHRI BHUVNENDRA SINGH VS. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (HIGHER), COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT K.K.COLLEGE, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AND STATE OF U.P., THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (HIGHER EDUCATION) [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-266] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP BISHNOI VS. SPEAKER [LAWS(P&H)-2014-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG OIL COMPANY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-1991-4-150] [REFERRED TO]
INDEPENDENT GAS BASED POWER PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
NRUSINGHA KHATEI VS. DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1998-10-29] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI TOBACCO STORE VS. THE SALES TAX OFFICER [LAWS(ORI)-2015-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
AJAIB SINGH AND ANR. VS. BANK OF PUNJAB LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2006-2-543] [REFERRED TO]
THE SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. CHELLATHANKAM [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-709] [REFERRED TO]
VINJAMURI RAJAGOPALA CHARY AND ORS. VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
KAMIREDDY SUMATHI AND ORS. VS. C. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH MANN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-113] [REFERRED TO]
BRANCH MANAGER, I.C.I.C.I. LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MUMBAI VS. KALIYAMOORTHY AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-141] [REFERRED TO]
RAJANI KUMARI VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2016-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
DR. RENU GUPTA VS. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2016-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, UDUMALPET VS. A. KALIAMMAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-443] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
THE INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, INTUC OFFICE,VALANJAMBALAM, KOCHI VS. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM [LAWS(KER)-2016-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDHA LAKSHMI; PRASANNA VS. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VILLUPURAM DIVISION-I) LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-123] [REFERRED]
I.C.I.C.I. LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MUMBAI VS. KALIYAMOORTHY AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-495] [REFERRED TO]
LEGAL HEIRS OF RAM KUMAR VS. BANSHILAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-8-86] [REFERRED]
JAGDISH KUSHWAH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
VINJAMURI RAJAGOPALA CHARY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2015-12-78] [REFERRED TO]
MS. EERA THROUGH DR. MANJULA KRIPPENDORF VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
ALLOKAM PEDDABBAYYA AND ANOTHER VS. ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED VS. M/S. DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SHAILENDRA [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
DHEERENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. AUTHORISED OFFICER AADHAR HOUSING FINANACE LTD AND [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER, AVADI MUNICIPALITY, AVADI, CHENNAI VS. U GEETHA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-640] [REFERRED TO]
SABINA SAHDEV & ORS VS. VIDUR SAHDEV [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-174] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVALUE PROJECTS PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2020-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
TETALI PHANIDRA REDDY VS. MALLIDI SATISH REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2020-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
S. MURUGANANDAM VS. J. JOSEPH [LAWS(MAD)-2022-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASIS CHAKRABORTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-4-129] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

THOMMEN - (1.)SPECIAL leave is granted.
(2.)THIS appeal arises from the judgment of the Madras High Court in A.A.O. No. 421 of 1983 (reported in 1987 (2) Mad LJ 3). The sole question that arises for consideration is as regards the period of limitation for making a deposit to make an application under Rule 89 of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to set aside sale of immovable property sold in execution of a decree. Has the deposit to be made within 30 days from the date of sale as required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 92 of Order XXI or within 60 days from the date of sale as provided in Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
The High Court by the impugned judgment held that Article 127 governed the period of limitation to make a deposit in terms of Rule 89. In coming to that conclusion the High Court followed its earlier decision in Thangammal v. K. Dhanalakshmi, AIR 1981 Madras 254 and the decision of this Court in Basavantappa v. Gangadhar Narayan Dharwadkar, (1986) 4 SCC 273 : (AIR 1987 SC 53). In the latter decision, a Bench of two-Judges of this Court held that Thangammal (supra) was correctly decided on the point and the deposit made within 60 days from the date of sale was well within time.

We shall read the relevant provisions insofar as they are material. Rule 89 of Order XXI provides:

"89. Application to set aside sale on deposit. (1) Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application, or acting for or in the interest of such person, may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court,

(a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase-money, and

(b) for payment to the decree-holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been received by the decree-holder ... "

Rule 92(2) of Order XXI reads:

(2)... where, in the case of an application under Rule 89, the deposit required by that rule is made within thirty days from the date of sale, (or in cases where the amount deposited under Rule 89 is found to be deficient owing to any clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor and such deficiency has been made good within such time as may be fixed by the Court, the Court shall make an order setting aside the sale):

(3.)THE words shown in bracket in Rule 92(2) were substituted by Section 72 of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 1-2-1977. THE object of the amendment was to afford an opportunity to the applicant to make good any deficiency in the amount deposited under Rule 89 when the deficiency occurred by reason of clerical or arithmetical mistake on his part. That amendment has no relevance to the point in issue as regards the period of limitation except to emphasise that sub-rule (2) of Rule 92 had received the special attention of Parliament in 1976. Parliament addressed itself particularly to the sub-rule, and yet did not, apart from the special contingency provided for by the amendment, think it necessary to extend the period generally prescribed under 'Rule 92 (2) to make the deposit which is a condition precedent to an application to set aside a sale.
Rule 89 postulates an application on deposit. It says "may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court". These words show that deposit is a condition precedent to the making of an application to set aside a sale. That condition must be satisfied within the period prescribed by sub-rule (2) of Rule 92, which undoubtedly is 30 days. Parliament refused to alter that provision even when a part of the sub-rule was substituted.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.