NARAYAN SAHU Vs. MOHANT DAMODAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a decree-holder and a purchaser in execution of his own decree. His complaint is that the sale in execution of this decree has been set aside on an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code though that application was made after the expiration of the period allowed by the Limitation Act. He also maintains that the order was erroneous OD its merits. The sale was on the 15th of December 1908; the application on the following 15fch of January. Article 166 of the Indian Limitation Act permits a period of 30 days only from the date of the sale for an application to set aside a sale in execution of a decree.

(2.) The application in this case was admittedly made beyond this period, and the only answer proposed to this objection is that sec-18 of the Act gave the applicant an extended period. The sole question is whether this is made out.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge has decided in favour of the judgment-debtor. In opposition to this, the appellant maintains that to satisfy the terms of Section 18, the fraud must have been subsequent to the sale, and no such fraud is alleged, Next, he contends, that even if a wider scope be ascribed to the section, no fraudulent concealment is proved.