YASHWANT CHANDRANATH UPADHYA Vs. SHANTABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two CRPs., the petitioner is the same, and these petitions are preferred against a common order dt. 16th August 1978 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge, Belgaum, in Misc. A Ncs 150 and 151 of 1976 confirming the order dated 8-10-1976 passed by the learned Prl. Munsiff, Belgaum, in Misc. Nos. 5 and 4 of 1975 respectively.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the application filed by the applicant in Misc. 5/75 under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC (shortly, 'the Code'), was not maintainable as he had not deposited the amount as required by that rule. It was also further contended that the notice as required! by Rule 16 of Order 21 of the Code was not necessary lince the execution was filed by the original decree-holder as well as the assignee.

(3.) To appreciate the aforesaid two contentions, it is necessary to state a few facts of the case. Misc. 5/75 is filed under Order 21 rule 90 of the Code, by the original judgment debtors for setting aside the sale Of the property which is held in E.P. No. 11 of 1973 in execution of a mortgage decree passed in O.S. No. 282 of 1962, whereas Misc. 4 of 1975 is filed under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code, within 30 days of the sale by the purchaser of the right of redemption of the original judgment-debtors on depositing a sum of Rs. 2,800 as required by the aforesaid rule for setting aside the very sale which is challenged in Misc. 5 of 1975