Report No. 27
Order XXI, rule 89
1. The object of this amendment is to make it clear that a person having an interest at the date of theapplication can avail himself of this rule. Compare the discussion in the Report of the Civil Justice Committee1.
2 The present view is, that such persons are not entitled2-3-4-5-6.
3. See also amendments made by the High Courts of-
(i) Madras7, and
(ii) Allahabad, and the more specific amendments made by the High Courts of-
(iv) Patna9, and
The language of the Madhya Pradesh Amendment has been adopted.
4. For a history of the rule, see the under-mentioned case11.
1. Civil Justice Committee (1925) Report, p. 396.
2. Fatima-ul-Hasna v. Baldev, AIR 1926 All 204. The contrary view had been taken in ILR 34 All 186.
3. Pandurang v. Govind, (1916) ILR 40 Bom 557.
4. Sarada Kripa v. Harendra; ILR 49 Cal 454: AIR 1922 Cal 271. As to the person purchasing before sale, see Gosto Behari v. Sankar Nath, AIR 1917 Cal 281.
5. Sundaram v. Mamsa, ILR 44 Mad 554: AIR 1921 Mad. 157 (FB) (before Madras Amendment).
6. Deopati Kuer v. Mahabir, ILR 25 Pat 529: AIR 1947 Pat 293. •
7. Interpreted in Gutta Lahshminarasamma v. Yalamarti, AIR 1943 Mad 684 (Leach C.J. and Shahabuddin J.).
8. Interpreted in Vithoba v. Mahadeo, AIR 1948 Nag 303. See also Juharmal v. Ramdas, AIR 1937 Nag 161 (Vivian Bose J.).
9. Cf. Deopati Kuer v. Mahabir Prasad, ILR 25 Pat 529: ILR 1947 Pat 293.
10. Cf. Ram Chandra v. Narain Prashad, AIR 1935 Lah 51.
11. Deopati Kuer v. Mahabir Prashad, ILR 25 Pat 529: AIR 1947 Pat 293.