SMT. PARKASH KAUR versus SMT. SANDHOORAN AND ANR.

SMT. PARKASH KAUR versus SMT. SANDHOORAN AND ANR.

Withdrawal of a prior application under Rule 90 CPC is unilaterally effected by the applicant, not contingent upon Court order. In this case, withdrawal was effectively completed by the conduct of depositing the requisite amount pursuant to Court direction, and the Rule 89 application is deemed made when deposit was made, which was within limitation.

Parties
Appellant / Judgment Debtor: Smt. Parkash Kaur; Respondent No.1 / Decree Holder: Smt. Sandhooran; Respondent No.2 / Auction Purchaser: Suresh Kumar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 March 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Order XXI Rule 89 Application to Set Aside Sale, Order XXI Rule 90 Application to Set Aside Sale, Auction Sale in Execution, Withdrawal of Application, Limitation
Civil Procedure Order XXI Rule 89 Application to Set Aside Sale Order XXI Rule 90 Application to Set Aside Sale Auction Sale in Execution Withdrawal of Application Limitation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Parkash Kaur

Appellant / Judgment Debtor

Smt. Sandhooran

Respondent No.1 / Decree Holder

Suresh Kumar

Respondent No.2 / Auction Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC made within limitation is deemed time-barred due to the timing of withdrawal of a prior application under Rule 90
  2. 2 Interpretation of the word 'withdraws' in Order XXI Rule 89(2) CPC

Ratio Decidendi

Withdrawal of a prior application under Rule 90 CPC is unilaterally effected by the applicant, not contingent upon Court order. In this case, withdrawal was effectively completed by the conduct of depositing the requisite amount pursuant to Court direction, and the Rule 89 application is deemed made when deposit was made, which was within limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Entire deposit made by appellant under Supreme Court direction together with interest to be refunded to appellant
  • Sale price paid by auction purchaser together with interest to be returned