Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

    Popooru Venkata Narasimma Petitioner (Judgment-Debtor). v. Jayanti Lakshmi Narasiham And Another S (Decree-Holder And Purchaser).

    A copy of the affidavit filed in support of the petition was not served on the other side.

    Further the case in Mathuji v. Kondoj(1) has not been followed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 415 of 1904 (Boddam and Sankaran Nair, JJ.) the decision in which case is subsequent to the decision in Civil Revision Petition No. 359 of 1902, where also it had been held that without an application (oral or written) within 30 days, a sale in execution could not be set aside under Sect. 310-A, Civil Procedure Code of 1882 (O. 21, R. 89).

    The District Judge could not be said to have acted without jurisdiction or acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in deciding the question of limitation as he did even if the above two decisions of this Court are erroneous.

    No question under Sect. 115, Civil Procedure Code, therefore arises and we must and do dismisss this Civil Revision Petition.

    There will be no order as to costs.

    Petition dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Popooru Venkata Nara... v. Jayanti Lakshmi Nara...
    (Jan 7, 1916)