MANTENA DURGARAJU Vs. MELAM PALLAM RAJU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The problem that is posed in this revision case is whether Section 78(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) governs the proviso to Section 68 of the Act.

(2.) The facts necessary for this enquiry are few and are not in dispute. The father of respondents 1 to 3 was adjudged an insolvent in I. P. No. 21 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinates Judge's Court, Narsapur. After the vesting order was made, the Official Receiver sold the one-fourth undivided share belonging to the insolvent in public auction on 28-2-1961 and the petitioner purchased that share. On 25-3-1961, respondents 1 to 3, the insolvent's children, filed I. A. No. 181 of 1961 under Section 68 of the Act to set aside the above mentioned sale. As this petition was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the proviso to Section 68 i.e., twenty-one days from the date of sale, they filed another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay in presenting the petition.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge, without even ordering notice to the Official Receiver or the auction purchaser, condoned the delay and entertained the application for setting aside the sale. It is to revise this order that a revision petition was filed in this Court by the auction-purchaser.