K V JANAKIRAMA IYER Vs. RADHAKRISHNA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point that arises for consideration is whether the amendment introduced to Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C., by the High Court demanding furnishing of security from an applicant seeking to set aside the sale, stands repealed by the Central Act 104 of. 1976 as being inconsistent with it.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are as follows:

(3.) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the amendment introduced by this Court in the proviso to Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C, requiring furnishing of security, is inconsistent with Rule 90 as it now stands after the amendment.