Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
C. VELAYUDA MUDALI V/S T. CHENGAMA NAIDU & ANOTHER, decided on Monday, July 13, 1942.
[ In the High Court of Madras, A.A.O.No. 10 of 1941. ] 13/07/1942
Judge(s) : WADSWORTH & PATANJALI SASTRI
Advocate(s) : R. Gopalaswami Ayyangar. Messrs. P.V. Raghavan, K.M. Venkatavaradachariar, K.V. Ramachandra Ayyar, S. Krishnaswami.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1942 (55) LW 531"  







    Civil Procedure Code - Order 21 Rule 90 -     (Appeal (disposed of on 13-7-1942) against the order of the District Court of Chingleput dated 20-12-1940 and made in M.P. No. 453 of 1937 in E.P. No. 16 of 1933 in O.S. No. 6 of 1929.)It seems to us clear that proceedings under O. 21 R. 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure are proceedings in execution which must necessarily be stayed when an order under S. 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938 has been passed until the disposal of a pending application under S. 19. The fact that a sale held before 1st October 1937 cannot be set aside under Madras Act IV of 1938 does not justify the Court in going on with proceedings relating to such a sale when all execution proceedings have been stayed. In such circumstances the order passed under O. 21 R. 90 is an illegal order and it must be set aside. The lower Court will be directed to dispose of the application under S. 19 at once and thereafter to hold a fresh enquiry into the petition under O. 21 R. 90. The appellant is entitled to costs in this appeal payable by the decree-holder.