Sankaram Pillai vs M.S. Ananthanarayana Aiyar

Kunhi Raman, J.—The appeal is from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly dismissing an application made under

Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C, for setting aside a sale in execution. The reason why the application, which was made by the judgment-debtor in the

Court below, was dismissed, was that the judgment-debtor who was called upon to furnish security under proviso 1 to Order 21, Rule 90, had

failed to furnish such security.

It is contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor who is the appellant here that there is an error of law in the order made by the lower Court

directing security to be furnished because before that stage the petition for setting aside the sale had been ""admitted."" According to the proviso

referred to, the Court may call upon the judgment-debtor (applicant) to furnish security before ""admitting"" his application. The word ""admitting"" in

this provision of law has been construed in the decisions reported in Narasimha Pattamahadevi v. Annan Naidu AIR 1940 Mad. 624 and

Venkatalingama v. Venkatanarasimha AIR 1942 Mad. 509, as including all cases in which notice has been ordered to the decree-holder. The view

taken is that when notice of application presented by the judgment-debtor is ordered to the decree-holder, then that petition is ""admitted"" by the

Court. In the present case security was ordered before the learned Subordinate Judge directed notice to issue to the decree- holder; but it is

contended that on the date of the order directing security to be furnished the petition filed by the judgment-debtor had been numbered in the Court

below and that the numbering of the petition must be regarded as amounting to admitting it. We are not prepared to accept this contention as well-

founded. There is no authority in support of it and the contention seems to us to be opposed to reason. We need only point out that all the civil

revision petitions and second appeals that are filed in this High Court are numbered before they are posted for admission. The fact that they are

numbered does not mean that they are admitted at that stage. In these circumstances there is no substance in the only contention urged on behalf of

the appellant and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.