High CourtsDivision Bench

Mathura Das vs Nathuni Lall Mahta and Another

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 3 June 1885 · Citation: (1885) ILR (Cal) 731

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prinsep, J · Grant, J
Ask AI about this case

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

2 paragraphs · 169 words

Prinsep and Grant, JJ.—Under the terms of the third para, of Section 294 of the Code, it is discretionary with the Court of execution to set aside a sale in which the decree-holder has purchased without the permission of the Court having been first obtained. In dealing with such a matter, which we regard as an irregularity in conducting the sale, it should be taken into consideration whether any substantial injury has resulted, that is to say, whether, by reason of the decree-holder being the purchaser without permission of the Court previously obtained, an inadequate price has been realized at the sale. The judgment-debtor, appellant, has been unable to show us that the judgment of the lower Court, in holding that there was no such substantial injury, is incorrect. There are other irregularities alleged by the appellant in publishing the proclamations; but it is unnecessary to consider them having regard to the finding that no substantial injury has resulted at the sale.

2.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.