SOMASUNDARAM Vs. THANGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent, as to the maintainability of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) THE respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 192 of 1974 and in execution of the same, brought the properties to sale. Sale was held which was sought to be set aside by the appellant herein by an application under O.21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Sec.151 of the Code. THE application was dismissed by the Executing Court and on appeal in C.M.A. No.775 of 1986, a single Judge of this Court affirmed the order of the Executing Court, it is against the said order, the present L.P. Appeal has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant however contends that there are judgments of the Supreme Court rendered by larger Benches, taking a contrary view and the judgment cited above need not be followed in view of the earlier decisions by larger Benches. In support of the said contention. LEARNED counsel has drawn on attention to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co., A.I.R. 1962S.C. 256, Radhey Shyam v. Shyam Behari Singh, A.I.R. 1971 S.C.2337, Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaban, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1786:94 L. W. 91 (S.N.), Ramachandra G.Pandit v. Charity Commr., (1987)3 S.C.C. 273 and Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sru Anjaneya Swami Temple, (1996)S.C.C. 52: 19962 L. W. 8. In addition thereto, learned counsel also invited our attention to the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in Boopathi Vijayaraghavan Chettiar v. Radha Rukmani Ammal, 1984 T.L.N.J. 92 and Rukmani v. H.N. Thirumatai Chettiar, A.I.R. 1985 Mad. 283: 98 L. W. 83. LEARNED counsel has also referred to a judgment of the Privy Council in Sabitri Thakurain V. Savi, A.I.R 1921 P.C. 80: 14 L. W. 362.