VELAPPAN Vs. SAHASRANAMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether, from an order dismissing an application to set aside sale for default, the default being not taking fresh steps to some of the respondents, an appeal will lie. The petitioners in F. A. No. 840 of 1975 filed in E P No. 459 of 1974 of the Munsiff's Court, Palghat are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. The application to set aside the sale filed by the petitioners under O.21 R.90 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed by the execution court for not taking fresh steps to some of the respondents. From the above order of dismissal for default the petitioners filed an appeal before the District Court, Palghat which was ultimately disposed of by the Sub Court, Palghat. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the appeal holding that no appeal will lie against an order of dismissal for default of an application to set aside a sale under O.21 R.90. It is the above judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that has been challenged by the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The question whether an appeal will lie from an order like the one passed by the execution court in this case has come up for consideration in a number of cases There is really a conflict of views also on this point. In Basaratulla Mean v. Reazuddin Mean ( AIR 1926 Cal. 773 ) Page J has said:

(3.) O.21 R.92, Civil Procedure Code, reads: