HIMMATBHAI SON OF CHAGANLAL versus RIKHILAL AND ORS.

HIMMATBHAI SON OF CHAGANLAL versus RIKHILAL AND ORS.

An application made by one judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90 does not preclude other judgment debtors from applying under Order 21 Rule 89; the sale may be set aside if the deposit required by Rule 89 is properly made on behalf of judgment debtors.

Parties
Appellant: Himmatbhai son of Chaganlal; Respondents: Rikhilal and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 February 1978
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Adjudication on Certificate of Fitness From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution Proceedings, Auction Sale, Setting Aside Sale, Order 21 Rule 89, Order 21 Rule 90
Civil Procedure Execution Proceedings Auction Sale Setting Aside Sale Order 21 Rule 89 Order 21 Rule 90

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Himmatbhai son of Chaganlal

Appellant

Rikhilal and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Adjudication on Certificate of Fitness From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an application by one judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90 bars maintenance of application by other judgment debtors under Order 21 Rule 89

Ratio Decidendi

An application made by one judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90 does not preclude other judgment debtors from applying under Order 21 Rule 89; the sale may be set aside if the deposit required by Rule 89 is properly made on behalf of judgment debtors.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment-debtors’ application under Order 21 Rule 89 is allowed; sale set aside
  • Auction-purchaser entitled to withdraw the amount covered by the fixed deposit along with interest thereon