MOHAN LAL versus SHRI HARI PRASAD YADAV AND ORS.

MOHAN LAL versus SHRI HARI PRASAD YADAV AND ORS.

The executing court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code after the period of limitation prescribed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act, and neither Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to extend this period.

Parties
Appellant: Mohan Lal; Respondents: Shri Hari Prasad Yadav and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 May 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against the Order of Patna High Court Dated 26.4.1983
Outcome
Petition and appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Period for Application to Set Aside Auction Sale, Applicability of Limitation Act Section 5 to Applications Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, Jurisdiction of Executing Court After Expiry of Limitation Period
Civil Procedure Limitation Period for Application to Set Aside Auction Sale Applicability of Limitation Act Section 5 to Applications Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Jurisdiction of Executing Court After Expiry of Limitation Period

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

Parties

Mohan Lal

Appellant

Shri Hari Prasad Yadav and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against the Order of Patna High Court Dated 26.4.1983

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside a sale is governed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act
  2. 2 Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to such applications
  3. 3 Whether Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure can extend time for making such application

Ratio Decidendi

The executing court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code after the period of limitation prescribed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act, and neither Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to extend this period.

Court Disposition

Petition and appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with the impugned order of the High Court
  • Special Leave Petition dismissed