LALLAMAL HARDEO DASS COTTON SPINNING CO. Vs. SUKH DIAL RAM BILAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment -debtor's appeal against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Aligarh, dismissing his application for setting aside an execution sale.

(2.) IN execution of a decree against the Appellant, the executing court auctioned the Appellant's immoveable property on 6 -5 -1958. On 28 -5 -1958 the Appellant filed an application Under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale. The decree -holder Respondent filed a reply on 26 -7 -1958 opposing the application and thereafter a similar reply was filed by the auction purchaser Respondent. On 8 -11 -1958 the application Under Order 21, Rule 90 was dismissed in default, but was restored on 6 -2 -1960. On 27 -4 -1960 the Appellant applied for permission to file a report and a map in support of his application. Permission was granted on 30 -4 -1960. About the same time, he applied for permission to make a deposit or furnish security as required by Clause (b) of the Proviso to Sub -rule (1) of Rule 90. The learned Civil Judge made an order on 23 -7 -1960 declining to grant permission on the ground that the Appellant had not made any deposit nor moved the Court for fixing its amount at the time when he filed the application Under Order 21, Rule 90 and more than two years had elapsed since then. By the same order, the learned Civil Judge rejected the application Under Order 21, Rule 90 as not maintainable. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order.

(3.) THE appeal came on for hearing originally before a Division Bench consisting of Jagdish Sahai and W. Broome, JJ. Being of the opinion that a conflict existed between the decisions of this Court on the point, they have referred the case to a larger Bench. That is how the case comes before us.