AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 191 wordsOldfield, J.—This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside a sale u/s 312 of the Civil Procedure Code. The first plea taken is, that the appellant was no party to the decree, and his property, which has been the subject of the sale, was not liable to be attached and sold, and therefore the sale is invalid.
This is not an objection which is entertainable u/s 311, which permits a sale to be set aside for material irregularity in publishing or conducting it, and is not a ground, therefore, for setting aside the sale under that section. We cannot therefore hold that the order refusing to set aside the sale is wrong by reason of this objection.
Moreover, it is now preferred for the first time, and, we may add, was an objection which the appellant might or should have taken u/s 278 at the time of attachment, and he would then have had his remedy as therein provided.
The other pleas fail, as no material irregularity such as the appellant refers to in those pleas has been established. The appeal is dismissed with costs.