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

Report No. 139

3.2. The Anomaly.-

Evidently, when amending the Limitation Act in 1976 it was not realised that the complementary provision of Order XXI, rule 92 of C.P.C. providing to the effect that a sale would be set aside on an application for setting aside the sale being made within 30 days along with the deposit in court of the appropriate amount also required to be amended by enlarging the relevant period from 30 days to 60 days in order to achieve the purpose of enlarging the time prescribed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act. Thus, the time for making the application and the time for making the deposit which was identical under the unamended Article 127 of the Limitation Act read with Order XXI, rule 92(2) became discrepant in view of the amendment of Article 127.

It became 60 days under the former provision whereas it remained 30 days under the latter provision. The Legislature upon realizing on the basis of experience that banks would take more than 30 days to arrange for a loan and the time of 30 days for making the deposit was too short, amended the relevant Article of the Limitation Act (for making the application) by substituting a period of 60 days in place of 30 days. However, presumably on account of an unfortunate inadvertence, it escaped the notice of the Draftsman while preparing the Bill for amending Article 127, Limitation Act, that unless a corresponding amendment was made in Order XXI of rule 92(2), the purpose of the legislation would be defeated.

The reason is that while the time for making the application would stand enlarged to 60 days, the time for making the deposit (supposed to accompany the application) would remain unaltered as 30 days. Thus, notwithstanding the amendment of the Limitation Act, the judgment-debtor would fail to have the sale set aside if he was not able to make the deposit within 30 days which the Legislature itself thought was insufficient for collecting the requisite amount and considered it desirable to enlarge to 60 days on that account by amending the relevant Article in the Limitation Act. In brief, as the period for making the deposit to accompany the application and the period for making the application itself are now discrepant and different, an anomaly has arisen.

Urgent need to amend Order XXI, Rule 92(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to remove an anomaly which nullifies the Benevolent Intention of the Legislature and Occasions Injustice to Judgment Back

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