Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing Mela Ram And Ors. vs Dharam Chand Amrit Lal on 16 October, 1957

Union Of India vs Shamsher Singh & Anr on 12 July, 2023

Parmeshwar Shau, ILR 56 Cal 61, and other cases, the Nagpur High Court in Khwaja Allawali v. Kesharimal, ILR (1947) Nagpur 176, and the Punjab High Court in Mela Ram v. Dharam Chand Amrit Lal, ILR (1958) Punjab 407 , that it was not an application for execution. We have gone through the judgments carefully and we have derived great assistance from them. If we are not dealing with each of the cases specifically, it is only because we have practically dealt with all the reasons given by the learned Judges in support of their respective views. We realise that the opposite construction far which the appellant contended is also a possible one; but it ignores the history of the legislation and the anomalies that it introduces. On a procedural matter pertaining to execution when a section yields to two conflicting constructions, the court shall adopt a construction which maintains rather than disturbs the equilibrium in the field of execution. The historical background of Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, the acceptance of the legal position that an application for restitution is one for execution of a decree by a number of High Courts, the inevitable adoption of the said legal position by innumerable successful appellants within the jurisdiction of the said High SANJAY GUPTA 2023.07.19 12:11 8 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 2023:PHHC:089615 Courts, the possible deleterious impact of a contrary view on such appellants, while there will be no such effect on similar appellants within the jurisdiction of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view, also persuade its to accept the construction that the application for restitution is one for execution of a decree. We, therefore hold on a fair construction of the provisions of Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code that an application for restitution is an application for execution of a decree."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahijibhai Mohanbhai Barot vs Patel Manibhai Gokalbhai And Ors. on 17 December, 1964

61 and other cases the Nagpur High Court in Khwaja Allawali v. Kesarimal I.L.R 1947 Nag 176 and the Punjab High Court in Mela Ram v. Dharam Chand and Amrit Lal (1958) I.L. R XI (1) Punj 407 (F. B) that it was not an application for execution. We have gone through the Judgments carefully and we have derived great assistance from them. If we are not dealing with each of the cases specifically it is only because we have practically dealt with all the reasons given by the learned Judges in support of their respective views. We realize that the opposite construction for which the appellant contended is also a possible one; but it ignores the history of the legislation and the anomalies. On a procedural matter pertaining to execution when a section yields to two conflicting constructions the Court shall adopt a construction which maintains rather than disturbs the equilibrium in the field of execution. The historical background of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure the acceptance of the legal position that an application for restitution is one for execution of a decree by a number of High Courts the inevitable adoption of the said legal position by innumberable successfull appellants within the jurisdiction of the said High Courts the possible deleterious impact of a contrary view on such appellants while there will be no such effect on similar appellants within the jurisdiction of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view also persuade us to accept the construction that the application for restitution is one for execution of a decree. We therefore hold on a fair construction of the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure that an application for restitution is an application for execution of a decree.
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Mahjibhai Mohanbhai Barot vs Patel Manibhai Gokalbhai & Ors on 11 December, 1964

As we have already indicated, there are strong currents of judicial opinion expressing conflicting views on the construction of S. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Madras High Court in Somasundaram v. Chokkalingam(1) and Chittoori Venkatarao v. Chekka Suryanarayana (2) , the Bombay High Court in Kurgodigouda'v. Ningangouda (8) and Hamidalli v. Ahmedalli (4) , the Patna High Court in Bhaunath v. Kedarnath(5), the Chief Court of Oudh in Chandika v. Bital(6), the Rangoon High Court in A.M.K.C.T. Muthuukarauppan Chettiar v. Annamalai(7), the High Court of Travancore-Cochin in Kochu Vareed v. Mariyam(8), and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Choudhary Hariram v. Pooran Singh(9) held that an application under s. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure was an application for execution of a decree, while it had been held by the High Court of Allahabad in Parmeshwar Singh v. Sitaldin Dube(") and other cases, the Calcutta High Court in Sarojebhushan v. Debendranath(11) and Hari Mohan Dalal v. Parmeshwar Shau(12) and other cases, the Nagpur High Court in Khwaja Allawali Kesarimal(13), and the Punjab High Court in Mela Ram v. Dharam Chand and Amrit Lal(14) that it was not an application for execution. We have gone though the judgments carefully and we have derived great assistance from them. If we are not dealing with each of the cases specifically, it is only because we have practically dealt with all the views. We realize that the opposite construction for which the appellant contended is also a possible one; but it ignores the history of the legislation and the anomalies that it introduces. On a procedural matter pertaining to execution when a section yields to two conflicting constructions, the Court shall adopt a construc- tion which maintains rather than disturbs the equilibrium in the field of execution. The historical background of s. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the acceptance of the legal position that an application for restitution is one for execution of a decree by a number of High Courts, the inevitable adoption of the said (1) [1916] I.L.R. 40 Mad. 780.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 24 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Mangali Chinthala Chinna Nagamma ... vs Peddinti on 19 November, 2024

411] , the Bombay High Court in Kurgodigouda v. Ningangouda [(1917) ILR 41 Bom 625] and Hamidalli v. Ahmedalli [(1920) ILR 45 Bom 1137] , the Patna High Court in Bhaunath v. Kedarnath [(1934) ILR 13 Pat 411 (FB)] , the Chief Court of Oudh in Chandika v. Bital [(1930) ILR 6 Luck 448] , the Rangoon High Court in A.M.K.C.T. Muthukaruppan Chettiar v. Annamalai [(1933) ILR II Rang 275] , the High Court of Travancore-Cochin in Kochu Vareed v. Mariyam [AIR 1952 TC 40] , and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Choudhary Hariram v. Pooran Singh [AIR 1952 MP 295] held that an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure was an application for execution of a decree, while it had been held by the High Court of Allahabad in Parmeshwar Singh v. Sitaldin Dube [(1935) ILR 57 All 26 (FB)] and other cases, the Calcutta High Court in Sarojebhushan v. Debandranath [(1932) ILR 59 Cal 337] and Hari Mohan Dalal v. Parmeshwar Shau [(1929) ILR 56 Cal 61] and other cases, Page 17 of 19 the Nagpur High Court in Khwaja Allawali Kesarimal [ILR 1947 Nag 176] , and the Punjab High Court in Mela Ram v. Dharam Chand and Amrit Lal [(1958) ILR XI (I) Punj 407 (FB)] that it was not an application for execution. We have gone through the judgments carefully and we have derived great assistance from them. If we are not dealing with each of the cases specifically, it is only because we have practically dealt with all the reasons given by the learned Judges in support of their respective views. We realize that the opposite construction for which the appellant contended is also a possible one; but it ignores the history of the legislation and the anomalies that it introduces. On a procedural matter pertaining to execution when a section yields to two conflicting constructions, the Court shall adopt a construction which maintains rather than disturbs the equilibrium in the field of execution. The historical background of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the acceptance of the legal position that an application for restitution is one for execution of a decree by a number of High Courts, the inevitable adoption of the said legal position by innumerable successful appellants within the jurisdiction of the said High Courts, the possible deleterious impact of a contrary view on such appellants, while there will be no such effect on similar appellants within the jurisdiction of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view, also persuade us to accept the construction that the application for restitution is one for execution of a decree. We, therefore, hold on a fair construction of the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure that an application for restitution is an application for execution of a decree.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1