Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Sital Parshad vs Kishorilal on 6 March, 1967

Thava Pandian And Ors. vs Veerappa Chettiar And Ors. on 8 December, 1969

Goli Padaraju v. Mattapalli Raju and Venkatasubba Rao v. Kesavayya (1955) An.W.R. 492, are cases of variation of the preliminary decree by the appellate Court and viewed the question in the same way as Sital Prasad v. Kishorilal . In our opinion, the principle applicable to variation of a preliminary decree in the context cannot be extended to cases where the terms of the preliminary decree as to priority of sales had not been carried into the final decree and execution has taken place in accordance with the final decree as it stands. The doctrine of dependence does not enable the Court to read the preliminary decree and the final decree together and proceed on the basis that the final decree reflected the terms of the preliminary decree unless on a construction of the two decrees that view would be justified. Apart from construction we do not think that normally omission in the final decree of the terms in the preliminary decree can be taken note of by the executing Court and try to set it right. The executing Court should take the final decree as it stands and cannot go behind it. Whether particular items of property should be sold first or last, as indicated in the preliminary decree, is part of the decree and it is not a question relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree. If the final decree is in variance with the preliminary decree, the right course for the party is to apply for amendment of the final decree and not to ask the executing Court to sit in judgment over the final decree.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.Mallikadharmaraj vs N.Balamani on 23 August, 2022

8. It is a well settled principle that on the mere fact that there is an appeal from a preliminary decree does not oust the jurisdiction of the trial Court to prepare a final decree even while the appeal is pending unless there is a stay order. The said principle has been relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sital Parshad vs. Kishorilal reported in 1967 SCR (3) 101.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

Virendrapal Singh vs Lalit Kumar And Anr. on 5 February, 1992

In Sital Parshad and Anr. v. Kishorilal the respondent obtained a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit by sale of mortgaged property. As the preliminary decree did not allow interest to the respondent from the date of the suit to the date of preliminary decree. The respondent filed an appeal in the High Court. As there was no stay order passed by the High Court, the respondent apply for making the preliminary decree a final decree and the court passed the final decree pending the appeal from preliminary decree, and the respondent took out execution of final decree. While the execution was pending, the High Court allowed the Respondents second appeal and allowed interest. An objection Under Section 47 C.P.C. was filed in the execution that decree is not executable as no fresh final decree has been passed and execution not filed within three years of judgment of High Court. The trial court rejected the contention of the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal and letters patent appeal to the High Court and the same were dismissed. The Supreme Court considered the effect of preliminary decree and final decree in mortgage suits and observed that in a case where an appeal from the preliminary decree is dismissed and the preliminary decree is confirmed in to it does not follow that the period of payment allowed in the trial court's decree is extended automatically even though a final decree has been passed in the meantime. It seems to us that it is the duty of the appellate court to indicate when dismissing the appeal from a preliminary decree in toto whether the time for payment is to be extended and if it does not do so, the original time granted for the purpose must stand. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Harsh Kumar Aggarwal (Deceased) ... vs Prem Narain Aggarwal (Since Deceased) ... on 15 July, 2025

5. Mr. Nagrath has also drawn attention of this court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sital Parshad vs. Kishorilal1, in particular para 5 of that judgement, to submit that the court seized of an appeal against a preliminary decree is also empowered to adjudicate upon the final decree, that comes to be passed during the pendency of the appeal.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A J Bhambani - Full Document
1   2 Next