Vilja v. Padmaja
Case brief
What is this about?
A second appeal challenging a court auction sale set aside by a decree holder. The High Court dismisses the appeal, holding the appellant failed to prove substantial injury or material irregularity or fraud under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, and there is no substantial question of law involved.
What did the court decide?
Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal dismissed confirming the order of first appellate Court and Execution Court.
What the court decided
C.M.S.A.(MD).No.22 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.M.S.A.(MD)No.22 of 2012 and
M.P(MD) No.1 of 2012
Vilja ... Appellant/Appellant/ Petitioner/3rd Party
-vs-
- Padmaja 2. Jebaraj
- Siril Sunder Raj ... Respondents/Respondents/ Decree Holder/Judgment Debtor/ Auction Purchaser
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Order 21 Rule 90 r/w Section 100 of C.P.C, against the order and decreetal order passed in C.M.A.No.16 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, dated 16.02.2012 confirming the order passed in E.A.No. 43 of 2004 in E.P.No.49 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, dated 19.12.2006.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal regarding the validity of the court auction sale.
Whether the appellant sustained substantial injury due to alleged irregularities or fraud in the conducting of the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Vilja
- respondent
Padmaja
- respondent
Jebaraj
- respondent
Siril Sunder Raj
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court