SUBBA RAO Vs. LAXMIKANTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question involved in these two appeals and revisions is whether the first Proviso to Order 21 Rule 90 CPC Act 5 of 1908 as was obtaining in this State stood repealed expressly or impliedly by order 21 Rule 90 as amended by the CPC Amendment Act 104 of 1976. The parties arc referred to in the rest of the judgment as judgment debtor and decree holder.

(2.) Prior to 1976 Order 21 Rule 90 CPC was reading.

(3.) The short submission made by Mr. M.S.K. Sastry, learned counsel appearing for the judgment-debtor is that the court below acted illegally and irregularly in calling upon the judgment-debtor to deposit any amount into Court before considering the application filed under Order 21, Rule 90 CPC. His submission is that the said proviso as appearing in this State is inconsistent with the amendment brought about by the CPC. Amendment Act 104 of 1976 and was, therefore, repealed. It is not open to the trial court to impose any conditions and require the judgment-debtor to deposit any money in derogation of the right available to the judgment-debtor to file an application under Order 21, Rule 90 after the amendment act came into force on 1-2-1977.