BOLLAM VENKATARAMUDU Vs. RAYALA KRISHNAYYA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was the judgment -debtor filed a petition to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90 and Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition was dismissed on the nth October, 1943, as the petitioner and his pleader were not present in Court at the time when it was called on for hearing. He applied then under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the District Munsiff to revise the order of dismissal, to set aside the sale and to reopen the said petition and enquire into the same.

(2.) THE District Munsiff held that the application would not lie in law. On appeal the Subordinate Judge came to the same conclusion and referred to the decision in Sivasubramania v. Adaikkalam, (1944) 1 M.L.J. 259 where it was held that if an execution petition is dismissed for default the provisions of Order 9 cannot be invoked in order to get the said order set aside. The application was set aside in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court as pointed out in Valia Mannadiar, In re : AIR1938Mad495 , where the Bench held:

(3.) THE Civil Revision Petition must be dismissed with costs.