MITHALAL RANCHHODDAS Vs. MANEKLAL MOHANLAL MODIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS purports to be an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, and as in our opinion it does not come within the terms of that section, we propose to reject it as incompetent without going into the merits of the matter.

(2.) THE applicant made an application under Order XXI, Rule 95, that is to say he applied as auction-purchaser to get possession of the property of the judgment-debtor, and his application was rejected by the Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation. THE only point which can be urged in this revision application is the point of limitation, and in our view a finding on a question of limitation, whether right or wrong, is generally speaking a finding on a point of law which does not bring the case within the ambit of Section 115, because it cannot be said that the Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. THE point was one which the Court had jurisdiction to decide, and whether the decision was right or wrong, the decision is final, unless it is subject to appeal, and in this case there is no appeal.

(3.) I may mention with reference to Verrappa v. Iratappa that what happened here was this. The point was when the auction-sale became absolute within the meaning of Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Subordinate Judge held on the construction of the article and on a consideration of the authorities cited to him that the sale became absolute "on a particular date, and that the applicant was not entitled to exclude the time taken up in: a certain suit in the computation of the period of limitation, Obviously then this was not a case of a Judge ignoring the plain words of a provision of the Indian Limitation Act. The case is covered by the ruling of the learned Chief Justice and the earlier authorities to which I have referred, and we hold that Section 115 does not apply.