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
6 paragraphs · 240 wordsVishwanath, J
Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner - J.Dr. The respondent decree holder though served - absent.
In this Revision Petition, the Revision petitioner - J.Dr. has challenged the order passed by the Small Causes Judge, Mysore, on 13.1.1995 on I.A.II filed by the Revision petitioner - J.Dr. in Ex.No. 368/93.
I.A.II was filed by the 3rd J.Dr. under Order 21 Rule 83 of C.P.C. praying that the sale of the property should be postponed to enable him to raise loan by mortgaging or by private sale of the portion of the mortgage property. He prayed that the sale be postponed by 3 months.
The learned Civil Judge rejected I.A.II and came to the right conclusion on other grounds though he did not refer to the relevant provision in C.P.C.
It is not disputed that the decree was a mortgage decree. Order 21 Rule 83(3) C.P.C. says that nothing in Order 21 Rule 83 shall be deemed to apply to a sale of property directed to be sold in execution of a decree for sale in enforcement of a mortgage. In view of this provision Order 21 Rule 83(3), when the decree is a mortgage decree and the property is ordered to be sold in execution of the decree for sale in enforcement of the mortgage, the Executing Court has no power to postpone the sale, Hence the Revision Petition is rejected.