AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The District Judge has made a mistake of fact in stating that the application u/s 310-A, Civil Procedure Code, was not made within 30 days of
the sale. It was made on the 20th February, and not on the 22nd as erroneously supposed by the District Judge, and was, therefore, within 30
days of the sale which was on the 22nd January.
The District Judge has also, we think, erred in holding that the District Munsif had no power to entertain the application u/s 310-A. Although a
petition u/s 311 C.P.C. was pending when that u/s 310-A was put in, yet when the petitions were first called up for disposal, the petitioner was, at
the instance of the other side, called upon to elect whether he will proceed with the petition u/s 310-A, or with that u/s 311, and he then withdrew
the latter.
In these circumstances, we must treat the matter as if no application u/s 311 has been made. The policy of the Section is to prevent a person
who determines to impeach the sale u/s 311 from at the same time obtaining the benefit of the concession granted u/s 310-A.
We do not think that it was intended that a party who withdraws all objections u/s 311 (without having done more than merely file a petition
under the Section) should be debarred from claiming relief u/s 310-A.
We must, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower appellate
Court.