S K S RAJAMANI NADAR Vs. TUTICORIN SMALL SCALE SALT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY M S ARUNACHALAM TUTICORIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.61 of 1984 on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin. THE suit was decreed for recovery of money. THE plaintiff filed E.P.No.,55 of 1989 to execute the decree in order to recover the decree amount. In the execution proceedings, the property of the petitioners was brought to sale. In the court auction the property fetched the highest bid of Rs.1,50,000 and the successful bidder also deposited the entire sale consideration. THE judgment-debtors filed a petition under O. 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale on various grounds. THE judgment-debtors filed an application E.A.No.1222 of 1991 to dispense with the furnishing of security. THE said petition was dismissed by the executing court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) THE revision petition was heard by Thanikkachalam, J. (as he then was). Before the learned Judge a contention was raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the Proviso to O. 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. introduced by the Madras High Court by way of amendment stands repealed by virtue of Sec.97(1) of Act 104 of 1976 (amended C.P.C.). Even assuming that the said Proviso is still in the statute. the same is being inconsistent with O. 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. the Central Act and as such the same cannot be enforced.

(3.) THE Madras High Court amendment to this Rule was introduced on 30.10.1936 which is as follows: