RAMASWAMY GOUNDER Vs. T S RAMASWAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question that arises for consideration in these C.R.Ps is as to whether the proviso inserted by the High Court of Madras Amendment in Rule 90, Order XXI, of the Code of Civil procedure immediately after sub-rule (I) thereof is inconsistent with the provisions contained in Rule 90, Order XXI of the Code Civil Procedure as amended by Central Act 104 of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) the proviso inserted by the High Court of Madras Amendment is as follows: "Provided that the Court may after giving notice to the appellant call upon him before admitting the application either to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court for an amount equal to that mentioned in the sale warrent or to that realised by the sale, whichever is less or to deposit such amount in Court."

(2.) RULE 90, Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Amending Act 104 of 1976 reads thus:-

(3.) ON the contrary, in the other two decisions, viz., Shanmugham. A v. Lakshmipathy Naidu and Karuppanna Gounder v. Velappa Naicker it has been held that the said proviso is not inconsistent with the amended Rule 90, Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such, it cannot be held to have been repealed.