AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gangadhara Rao, J.—This appeal is filed by the judgment-debtors questioning the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, dismissing their petition under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. even without numbering it, The judgment-debtors filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C., questioning the sale of their house property on a number of grounds. The learned Judge heard the counsel for judgment-debtors and held that there were no grounds to register the petition and proceed with the enquiry and rejected the petition.
In this appeal, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Judge erred in not numbering the petition and dismissing it without numbering it. It is submitted that he should have held an enquiry before dismissing the petition. We find merit in this contention. It is true that under Order 21, Rule 90 Sub-rule (3) C.P.C. an application to set aside a sale need not be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up. But, that is not the position here. Therefore, it could not be rejected under Sub-rule (3).
In the result, we set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge and direct him to number the petition and hold an enquiry after giving opportunity to both the parties. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs.