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
8 paragraphs · 144 wordsWadsworth, J.—The petitioner having deposited under Order 21, Rule 89 of the CPC the amount necessary to have the sale set aside and
this amount having been withdrawn by the decree-holder in full satisfaction, there no longer remains a debt to found an application under Madras
Act IV of 1938 or a decree to scale down. No refund of amounts paid can be ordered except under provisions of Sections 22 to 25, which have
no application when there is no subsisting sale to set aside. And the fact that the deposit under Order 21, Rule 89 of the CPC was made on the
day when the Act came into force has no bearing, when once it is conceded that the application under the Act was made long after the decree had
been satisfied.
The petition is dismissed.
There will be no costs.