Explore the legal case that delves deep into the intricacies of limitation rules in setting aside execution sales. The court’s analysis on the timely filing of objections and applications under relevant laws provides valuable insights into property dispute resolutions. Stay tuned to understand the significance of meeting legal deadlines in such matters.
Facts
- R-1 filed a writ petition challenging the sale of 12 flats and 2 penthouses after the High Court dismissed the application.
- R-2 filed an application before the executing court claiming they did not authorize the sale of the property.
- Permission was given to withdraw the SLP due to R-2’s application before the executing court.
- R-1 later filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC alleging lack of notice and attachment information.
- Various legal actions, objections, and appeals were made by the respondents regarding the sale of the property and the repayment of loans.
- The court considered multiple petitions, objections, and applications related to the execution of the decree and the sale of the property.
- The facts of Civil Appeal No.1643-1644 of 2020 were provided in the document.
- Civil Appeal No.1647 of 2020 involved the advertisement and sale of a bungalow.
- Proceedings were stayed initially, but no objections were filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC.
- Sale certificates were issued in favor of the appellants by the executing court.
- Various applications, petitions, objections, and legal processes were undertaken by the parties involved.
- Proposed buyer permitted to deposit Rs.50 lakhs
- Status quo granted
Also Read: Deputation Allowance in NDRF Personnel Case
Analysis
- The High Court did not decide the plea of limitation raised by the appellants.
- The High Court’s conclusion that any person claiming benefit of Section 14 of the Act can only claim exclusion of time for which it had been prosecuting another remedy with due diligence and in good faith was noted.
- The auction of both properties was deemed vitiated due to lack of notice to the judgment-debtor, leading to the quashing of the auction sale.
- The Court is to decide first whether the objections were filed within the time limit before considering other issues.
- The writ petition was filed on 26.12.2007 to potentially prevent remand if the issue of limitation favored the objectors later.
- The issue of limitation could not be ignored and should have been decided by the High Court.
- Section 14 of the Limitation Act excludes the time spent by the applicant in prosecuting other civil proceedings in good faith that are unable to entertain it due to a defect in jurisdiction or similar cause.
- Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC allows for setting aside a sale of immovable property in execution of a decree on grounds of irregularity or fraud.
- The limitation for filing an application to set aside a sale in execution of decree is 60 days.
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for extension of time or condonation of delay, is not applicable to proceedings under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC.
- The proceedings before the High Court were not conducted in good faith or with due diligence.
- The period from 26.12.2007 to 21.04.2008 may be excluded if we accept R-1’s case.
- Even if the proceedings were filed in good faith, there was a delay in filing the necessary application before the executing court.
- After excluding certain periods, the petitions were found to be time-barred and had to be dismissed.
- Both R-1 and R-3 would be barred by limitation for filing the required application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC.
Also Read: Analyzing Contempt of Court in Scandalous Allegations Case
Decision
- The appeals were allowed and the judgment of the High Court dated 07/08.11.2008 was set aside.
- The order of the executing court dated 23.02.2010 in Special Petition No 81 of 2007 was upheld.
- The writ petition itself was dismissed on 17.07.2008.
- Contempt Petition (Civil) No.63 of 2020 was also disposed of as a result of this judgment.
Also Read: Analysis of Limitation Laws in Executing Foreign Decrees
Case Title: AARIFABEN YUNUSBHAI PATEL . Vs. MUKUL THAKOREBHAI AMIN . (2020 INSC 297)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001643-001644 / 2020
