AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—The judgment debtor in the course of execution of a decree for recovery of money is the appellant. He challenges an order dismissing an application filed to set aside sale. Two grounds are raised before us. One is that there is no attachment before sale. For one thing, u/s 51(b) CPC, attachment is not a sine qua non to have a sale in execution of a decree. Secondly, the prejudice if any caused in that regard is not demonstrated. Thirdly, no such ground was raised even before the proclamation of sale. Hence, we do not find any ground to uphold that objection.
The next contention raised is that the sale was not confirmed on the 60th day. The period fixed under Order 21 Rule 90 is for the judgment debtor to apply for setting the sale. All that the rule requires from the Court, is that sale has to be confirmed. It does not prescribe any time limit for the court to confirm the sale. Though confirmation of sale may be relevant to decide the finality and the transaction of title under the sale through the force of the judicial process.
We find no merits in this appeal. Dismissed.