LAWS(RAJ)-1954-4-28

ALLADIN Vs. KARIMBUX AND OTHERS

Decided On April 07, 1954
ALLADIN Appellant
V/S
Karimbux And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Alladin against the order of the District Judge of Bhilwara in an execution matter.

(2.) THE facts leading to this revision are these: The opposite parties Karim Bux and others obtained a decree against Alladin, judgment -debtor applicant. That decree was put in execution, and the property of Alladin, consisting of certain houses, was sold. Chhagan Lal was the auction -purchaser of this property. The sale took place on 23 -4 -1951. On 14 -5 -1951, the applicant applied to the Civil Judge, under O. 21, R. 90, for setting aside the sale on the ground of fraud or material irregularity in publishing and conducting it. He did not show the auction -purchaser Chhaganlal as a party in the heading to this application. An objection was raised on behalf of the decree -holders on this ground, and thereupon Chhaganlal was added on 26 -5 -1951. Then another objection was raised to the effect that as Chhaganlal had been made party more than 30 days after the date of sale, the application under O. 21, R. 90 was barred by limitation. This plea prevailed with the executing Court which dismissed the application. There was an appeal to the District Judge who also upheld the contention, and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision. The only point, which is urged on behalf of the applicant, is that the executing Court was wrong in holding that the application was barred by limitation because the auction -purchaser had not been made a party till more than 30 days had gone by after the sale, and that by this wrong decision the executing Court refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.

(3.) IN - 'Ghazanfar Husain v. Ram Ratan',, AIR 1914 Oudh 307 (A), it was held that there was no absolute necessity for a judgment -debtor filing an application under O. 21, R. 90 to set out in the preamble of the application any formal array of parties, and therefore such an application should not be thrown out simply because an auction -purchaser was not shown therein as a party.