BURUGUPALLI RAJAGOPALAM Vs. OFFICE RECEIVER, WEST GODAVARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions raise the question whether a Court can entertain an application under S. 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, filed within 21 days from the date of the held by the Official Receiver. The sale now sought to be impugned was held on 21 -12 -1949. On the creditors filed a petition on 23 -1 -1950 for setting aside the sale on the ground that it did fetch proper price.

(2.) IT is urged by Mr. Ramamurthy for Rama Rao, that a Court is not precluded for entertaining an application notwithstanding it was filed beyond the time prescribed be provisos. In support of this proposition reliance is placed on Data Ram v. Deoki Nandan,, ILR 1 307 (AIR 1920 Lah 361) (A) where it was that when it came to the knowledge of the that the action of the receiver in any part respect was open to objection the Court has inherent discretion to rectify the Receiver's or "mistakes or to reverse or modify his act decisions and from this view -point it would immaterial if the Court acted upon inform supplied by persons who were outside the so Section 22 of the Act and in such a case the limit prescribed by S. 22 would be no bar to being taken by Court.

(3.) SECTION 5 of the Limitation Act cannot extended to such applications as it is not applicable to those applications. Vide Thakur Prasad Anno Lal,, ILR 35 All 410 (O). It follows that inherent powers of the Court could not be ended when the application is barred under the proviso to S. 68. Even assuming such powers exist in a Court this is not a proper case in which in be exercised having regard to the fact that petitioner had not chosen to impugn the sales eight months which clearly signifies that it is merely an afterthought. There are absolutely no merits in these petitions and they are dismissed costs in C. R. P. No. 248 of 1954.