NURJAHAN KHATUN Vs. ASIA KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination in this appeal is whether in the circumstances a deposit in Court by a judgment-debtor, made under protest, would entitle him to have a sale in execution set aside under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C.

(2.) The sale was held on 19 February 1930 and the matter was directed to come up for confirmation on 24 March. Meantime on 19 March two orders were passed, viz.: (1) Judgment-debtors are permitted to deposit the decretal money with compensation as prayed for; and (2) judgment-debtors by a petition state that they have deposited the decretal amount with interest on protest on the ground stated therein. The decretal money will remain in Court until further orders.

(3.) On 24 March notice was directed to issue on the decree-holders to show cause why the sale should not be set aside. The matter came on for hearing on 26 May 1930 when the learned Judge directed the sale to be set aside and the execution case dismissed on full satisfaction. The ground on which this order proceeded was that the protest in making the deposit by the judgment-debtors was so far justified in that interest had been calculated on the entire decretal money up to the date of deposit; that that was wrong; that a sum of Rs. 47-3-6 on that account had been wrongly assessed and fell to be deducted from the deposit in Court.