LAWS(PVC)-1946-10-37

UMEDSINGH BALIRAM RAGHUBANSHI Vs. SHANKERLAL JHANAKLAL

Decided On October 15, 1946
Umedsingh Baliram Raghubanshi Appellant
V/S
Shankerlal Jhanaklal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order of Mr. G.V. Ayachit, Additional District Judge, Seoni in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1944, dated 27th January 1945.

(2.) THE applicant, Umed Singh, is a private purchaser of property which was the subject of a Court sale in execution of a decree in civil Suit No. 45-B of 1939, and was purchased by Shankerlal Kalar. The decree-holder in the suit was Bhairo Sao and the judgment-debtor Birat Singh. The court sale took place on 23rd August 1944. On 25th September 1944 two applications were put in to set aside the sale. One was by Birat Singh and the other by the present applicant. The trial Court by its order D/- 2nd October 1944 dismissed Birat Singh's application as the necessary deposit was not made on 22nd September 1944 and the application was beyond the period of 30 days. With regard to Umed Singh's application the learned Court took a different view and ordered him to make the necessary deposit till 3rd October 1944 and on 20th October 1944 the Court set aside the sale. The learned Judge said: The explanation offered by the counsel on behalf of Umed Singh is that he could not present such an application within one month and specially on the last day as this Court was away on casual leave. The application being late by three days the learned Judge condoned the delay and extended the time for the making of the application and the deposit.

(3.) IN the case of Umed Singh also the limitation of 30 days applied and the making of a deposit is a condition precedent to the application. Llearned Counsel in support of his application relies on Md. Akbar Zaman Khan v. Sukhdeo Pande (11) 13 Cri.L.J. 467, Dulhin Mathura Koer v. Bansidhar Singh (12) 15 Cri.L.J. 83, Nur Muhammad v. Ghulaman A.I.R. 1934 Lah. 622 and Raomal v. Amarsingh A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 331 and argues that when the Court was on casual leave on 22nd September 1944 the Court must be deemed to be closed on that date. He claims, therefore, to deduct one day from the days spent till 22nd September 1944 and as 23rd September 1944 was a Saturday he claims to be in time on 25th September 1944.