Civil Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2017-SC-CIVIL-....
Get started with Indian Law Cases
Your password will be generated automatically and will be sent to your email-id provided in this form.
Full Name  
Email ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City
Mobile No
* Mobile No is required for verification of identity
 Bare Acts  | Legal Resources  | Lawyer Locater  | Articles  | Legal Dictionary  | Download Desktop Software  | Subscription   Home   |   E-Journal  |  Sign-In  | Contact Us  | Disclaimers

Civil Law
 Search Tips
Civil Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2017-SC-CIVIL-....
Judgement Subject Index/Important Decision/Topic

ILC-2014-SC-CIVIL-Feb-6

Maya Devi Vs. Lalta Prasad

Head Note

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order XXI Rule (11) ,  Rule (58) ,  Rule (97) ,  Rule (98) ,  Rule (99) ,  Rule (100) ,  Rule (101) , Order VIII Rule (10) , Order IX , Section 151 , Indian Contract Act, 1872  - Section 73 , Section 74

Suit for recovery - Decreed - Execution - Legality - Decree Holder/Respondent filed suit for recovery before Trial Court and same was decreed - Respondent sought for execution - Appellant filed objection petition before Executing Court and the same was dismissed - Appellant preferred execution first appeal before HC - HC upheld order of Executing Court - Hence instant appeal - Whether impugned order passed by HC was justified - Held, decree from which execution proceedings emanate was not one for delivery of possession, but was simple money decree - O. 21 proscribes filing of separate suit and prescribes that all relevant questions should be determined by Court - Objection under O. 21 should be meaningfully heard so as to avoid possibility of any miscarriage of justice - R. 103 ordains that where any application was adjudicated upon u/r. 98 or r. 100, order made thereon should have same force and be subject to same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise, as if it were a decree - Appellant was third party and was brought into lis by side wind in that her property was sought to be attached with intention of satisfying decree in which she was not directly or intrinsically concerned - Appellant who has approached Court under O. 21 r. 58 was more advantageously or favorably placed inasmuch as she was third party so far as decree was concerned, and her property was not subject- matter of decree - Courts below has hurried, if not prejudiced manner, rejected objections merely because of some sympathy towards Decree Holder - Objections deserved to be allowed without disturbing decree, leaving all other remedies open to respondent, including proceedings against Estate of Judgment Debtor - Impugned orders were set aside - Appeal allowed.

Topic(s)-Execution – Objection







Full Judgement Body


     
@2016 Indian Law
Name  
Email ID
Please Wait..