Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 27

Order XXI, rule 92(1)

1. Under Order XXI, rule 92(1), where no application to set aside the sale is made, etc., the court "shall make" an order confirming the sale. Since it is now proposed1 that when an objection is made to attachment the court may (while holding the sale) postpone its confirmation, it is desirable to exclude such a situation from the operation of rule 92. Necessary change is proposed2.

2. The Madras High Court has made an amendment to this rule which provides, in effect, that where the amount deposited by the purchaser is diminished, the resultant deficiency should be made good before the sale is confirmed. It is considered unnecessary to adopt this amendment, as such cases would be very rare.

3. Where, however, a deficiency in the amount required to be deposited is discovered to exist by reason of a mistake in calculation on the part of the party, some change is needed. The existing position is that in such cases the sale cannot be confirmed even if the deficiency is very small3-4. It is felt that in such cases the deficiency should be allowed to be made good within a time to be fixed by the court. Necessary change is proposed.

1. See Order 21, rule 59 (proposed).

2. Cf the amendments made by High Courts of Allahabad and Patna.

3. Amritlal v. Sadashiv, AIR 1944 Born 233 (Lokur J.).

4. Kalidas v. Dodda, AIR 1947 Mad 56.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys