LexDADI JAGANNADHAM versus JAMMULU RAMULU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c DAD! JAGANNADHAM v. JAMMULU RAMULU AND ORS. AUGUST 23, 2001 (DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., K.T. THOMAS, R.C. LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.N. VARIA VA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908/Limitation Act, 1963: Order 21, Rules 89 and 92(2)/Article I 27-Applicationfor setting aside sale-Period of limitation to make deposit under Rule 92(2)-Held, an application under Order 2 I, Rule 89 can be made within 60 days from the date of sale, as provided under Article I 27 of Limitation Ai:t, and as no period for making deposit is prescribed under Rule 92(2), deposit can also be made D within 60 days from the date of sale. Interpretation of Statutes: Construction of statute-Held, Court must, as far as possible adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of legislature-Court E could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when literal reading produces an intelligible· result. F In execution of a decree, sale of certain property of respondent, judgment-debtor, was held on 22.11.1982. An application under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the sale was tiled on 21.1.1983 i.e. on 59th day after the sale, and the prescribed amount was also deposited. The execution court dismissed the application on the ground that the deposit was not made within 30 days as prescribed under Order XXI Rule 92(2), CPC. The appeal tiled by the judgment-debtor was allowed and the sale was set aside. The revision petition tiled by the decree- G holder was rejected by the High Court. The High Court relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Basavantappa v. Gangadhar Narayan Dharwadkar and Anr. and held that the judgment-debtor should be given the benefit of enlarged period of limitation under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 whereunder the time for tiling an application under Order XXI, Rule 89 was extended upto 60 days. Aggrieved, the decree-holder tiled the H present appeal. 60 DAD! JAGANNADHAM v. JAMMULU RAMULU 61 The appeal was listed bef?re a three Judge Bench, which did not agree A with the view expressed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in P.K Unni's case*. In P.K. Unni's case it was noted that the time allowed for making a deposit in terms of Order XXI, Rule 92(2) CPC was 30 days whereas Article 127 of the Limitation Act prescribed a period of 60 days for making an application under Rule 89. It was held that Order XXI Rule 92(2) CPC and B Article 127 operated in different fields and that there was no repugnancy between the two. It was held that even though the period was enlarged under Article 127, Limitation Act, that period had no bearing on the time allowed for making a deposit. As the three Judge Bench, hearing this appeal, did not agree with the reasoning in P.K. Unni's case, they referred the appeal to a five Judge Bench. Accordingly, the appeal was heard by the five-Judge Bench C on the question : whether the period of limitation for making deposit in order to file an application to set aside .sale of immovable property under Order XXI, Rule 89 CPC is 30 days from the date of sale (being the period mentioned in Order XXI, Rule 92(2) CPC or 60 days from the date of sale as prescribed in Article 127 of the Limitation Act. Dismissing the appeal, .the Court HELD : I. 1 An application under Order XXI, Rule 89 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be made within the period prescribed under Article 127 D of the Limitation Act, 1963, i.e. within 60 days from the date of the sale unless there was a period prescribed for making a deposit. In the absence of a E prescribed period the time to make the deposit would be the same as that for making the application. This is so because if an application is made beyond the period of limitation, then a deposit made at that time or after that period would be of no use; as no period for making a deposit was prescribed under Order XXI, Rule 92(2). The deposit would also be made within 60 days from F the date of the sale. The view expressed in P.K. Unni's case* that Order XXJ, Rule 92(2) prescribes a period of limitation for making a deposit is not correct. (66-D-E; 69-H; 70-AI P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries and Ors., (199012SCC378, overruled. Basavantappa v. Gangadhar Narayan Dharwadkar and Anr., 1198614 SCC 273 and Thangammal and Ors. v. K. Dhanalakshmi and Anr., AIR (1981) Mad. 254, referred to. G Pathumanakutty etc.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.