Supreme Court of India
Prasantha Banerji vs Pushpa Ashoke Chandani And Ors. on 16 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: JT2000(7)SC502, (2000)3MLJ155(SC), (2002)9SCC554, AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 3567(2), 2000 AIR SCW 3662, (2000) 3 MAD LJ 155(1), (2000) 6 SUPREME 486(1), (2000) 3 ANDHLD 649, (2000) 3 ANDH LT 159, (2002) 2 LANDLR 35, (2001) 1 MAHLR 247, (2001) 2 PUN LR 680, 2002 (9) SCC 554, (2000) 4 ALLMR 874 (SC), (2000) 3 ICC 716, (2001) 1 BLJ 351, 2003 ALL CJ 1 334, (2000) 4 CURCC 95, (2000) 7 JT 502 (SC)
Author: R.P. Sethi
Bench: R.P. Sethi
JUDGMENT
1. Substitution allowed.
2. Leave granted .
3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.2.1999 passed by the High Court of Calcutta. The only point raised in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the Appellant who is not party to a decree is maintainable, when execution proceeding in respect of the same property has been initiated under Order 21, Rule 97 of the CPC or his remedy is going in the said execution proceedings. The High Court came to the conclusion that the suit having been filed after initiation of execution proceedings, the same is not maintainable, hence dismissed the second appeal. The High Court further held that the Appellant is entitled to raise all such lawful subtenancy or any of his right in the execution proceedings, under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code. The question raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Shreenath and Anr. v. Rajesh and Ors. 1989 (4) SCC 543, as against the Appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed and the impugned order of the High Court is upheld. Cost on the parties.