G. SUBRAMANIA MUDALI Vs. SRINIVASA PILLAI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a point of principle about condonation of delay in execution proceedings. A question of this sort immediately sets legal minds thinking about Section 5 of the Limitation Act, almost by automatic reflex. It did so in this case too. Only its application proved far too involved and ticklish.

(2.) THE problem arose this way. The appellant's property was sold in execution of a decree against him. The auction -purchaser obtained his sale certificate and moved the executing Court for delivery. But this application was dismissed one the day when it was called as nobody appeared. There was a counsel on record, but he was absent. The auction -purchaser thereupon moved the executing Court for setting aside the dismissal for default. Even this application was belated, filed as it was beyond 30 days. Hence the auction -purchaser moved another application for condonation of the delay. On notice of this last application, the judgment -debtor opposed it tooth and nail. The executing Court, however, overruled his objection, allowed the application and condoned the delay. This appeal is against that order.

(3.) IF we are to apply the new Section 5, it will, as everybody agreed, put a lid on further discussion. For this section expressly excludes from its ambit all applications arising under the execution chapter of the Civil Procedure Code. As Mr. Chandran pointed out, the new Section 5 far from helping the auction -purchaser, actually hinders him from getting the relief he requires.