Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Manmohan Dayal And Ors. vs Kailash Nath And Ors. on 9 May, 1957

Rifakat Ali And Anr. vs Shyam Sunder And Ors. on 25 February, 2004

In Manmohan Dayal and Ors. v. Kailash Nath and Ors., AIR 1957 All 647, Division Bench of this Court has observed that if an execution is already pending at the instance of the decree holder, his legal representatives, after his death need not make a fresh application for execution and it is sufficient that they apply for continuation of the proceedings in the pending execution."
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Mahamayatala Housing Co-Operative ... vs Charu Chandra Banerjee & Ors. on 19 November, 1998

Weekly Notes 494 as also the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Krishnaji Ramchandra Koshti v. Vikchand Ramkaran Maroadi reported in AIR 1942 Bombay 82: the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Manmohan v. Kailash Nath reported in AIR 1947 Allahabad page 647, the decision of Orlssa High Court in the case of Mahimuddin v. Panu Shahani and also the decision of Patna High Court in the case of Ayodhyalal Mahaseth v. Mahanath Brtjkishore reported in AIR 1940 Patna page 615 held that the decision in the case of Hem Chandra Banerjee v. Annapurna cannot be approved in view of the aforesaid preponderance of judicial authority.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Chandra vs Narendra Kumar And Others on 22 April, 2013

3. Order 22, R. 12 lays down that nothing in Rules 3, 4 and 8 shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order. Rules 3 and 4 of Order 22 provide for making of an application for substituting the heirs of plaintiff and defendant within the time provided by law, with the result that if such an application is not made, suit stands abated. When R. 12 lays down that nothing in Rules 3 and 4 will apply to execution proceedings, it means that even if heirs are not brought on record, execution proceedings will not abate. The legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder are not required to move substitution application and as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Manmohan Dayal v. Kailash Nath AIR 1957 ALL 647 : 1957 All LJ 578 they are entitled to ask for continuation of execution proceedings without moving any fresh application for execution.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chhotey Lal vs Dist. Judge, And Others on 19 November, 1990

3. Order 22, R. 12 lays down that nothing in Rules 3, 4 and 8 shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order. Rules 3 and 4 of Order 22 provide for making of an application for substituting the heirs of plaintiff and defendant within the time provided by law, with the result that if such an application is not made, suit stands abated. When R. 12 lays down that nothing in Rules 3 and 4 will apply to execution proceedings, it means that even if heirs are not brought on record, execution proceedings will not abate. The legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder are not required to move substitution application and as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Manmohan Dayal v. Kailash Nath, AIR 1957 AH 647 : 1957 All LJ 578 they are entitled to ask for continuation of execution proceedings without moving any fresh application for execution.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indrajit Choubey And Anr. vs Sitaram Agarwalla And Ors. on 23 December, 1969

4. This aspect of the matter may not be altogether free from difficulty and the point whether, on partition, there is really any assignment, may not be altogether free from controversy. We do not, however, think that it is necessary for us, for purposes of this case, to go Into that question, as, in our view, the present matter would be covered by Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it is now well established that the said rule applies to execution proceedings, (vide Krishnaji Ramchandra Koshti v. Bhikchand Ramkaran Marwadi, ILR 1941 Bom 629 = (AIR 1942 Bom 82); Manmohan Dayal v. Kailash Nath, ; Mahimuddin v. Panu Sahani.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1