A SHANMUGHAM Vs. LAKSHMIPATHY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision raises an important question about the validity of the Madras Proviso to O.21, R.90, C.P.C. of 1908 hereinafter referred to as the principal Act as a mended by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976.

(2.) Order 21, Rule 90(1) of the principal Act runs thus - Where any immovable property has been old in execution of a decree, the decree holder or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it." To this main provision the following proviso has been added by this Court -

(3.) The petitioner herein, who is the judgement debtor in the above suit, filed an application to set aside the Court auction sale deed in E.P. 361 of 1984 and the learned District Munsif called upon the petitioner to furnish security in accordance with the aforesaid proviso. The petitioner then filed an application to dispense with the furnishing of security and the learned District Munsif dismissed the same. Hence this revision.