Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Sundra Bai And Ors. vs Smt. Sonubai on 25 February, 2004

Khanu Bandu Mahakale, vs Appa Ganapati More, on 6 March, 2020

The cognate bench of this Court in SUNDRA BAI's case supra has held that the fundamental consideration should be that the decree holder is not to be deprived of the fruits of the decree except for good reasons. The decree must be allowed to be executed and unless an extraordinary case is made out, no stay should be granted. Mere satisfaction of the precondition stipulated in Order 21 Rule 29 CPC would not be a ground for the executing court to stay execution of the decree until the pending suit has been decided. The possibility of the judgment debtor filing frivolous suits to stall the execution of the decree would not be ruled out. Stay of execution of decree would 8 not be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as it would result in deprival of the right accrued to the decree holder to enjoy the fruits of the decree passed in R.A.No.77/2001 confirmed by this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the order impugned allowing the writ petition. Hence, the following order:
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Sujatha - Full Document

Chandrika Prasad vs Indramani (D) Through Lr\'S: Rudramani ... on 11 October, 2012

So far the case law cited on behalf of the petitioner in the matter of Smt Sundra Bai (supra) is concerned, it is suffice to say that in that case it was held that in pendency of the civil suit against the decree at the instance of the judgment debtor, the power to stay the execution proceedings should be invoked by the executing court in judicial manner and not in the arbitrary manner and only in exceptional circumstances and, ultimately, such petition filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court. Hence the case law cited on behalf of the petitioner is not helping to the petitioner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri R Murthy vs Sri R Muthuraj(Deceased) on 25 July, 2023

11. This Court in Ashok Shamanna's case (supra) and Sundra Bai's case (supra) has held that for invocation of Order XXI Rule 29 of CPC, both requirements should be met namely pendency of both proceedings before same Court and between same parties. That apart, it is also held that power under Order XXI Rule 29 of CPC is discretionary and on mere satisfaction of above condition, only in exceptional circumstances, where interest of justice required. However, impugned order is passed merely recording finding about pendency of two proceedings before same Court, which would not meet requirement of law.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document

Sri Lakshmi Narayana R vs Smt. H P Sukanya on 23 October, 2018

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ judgment debtor no.1 submits that the legal provision was wrongly stated in the application filed by judgment debtor no.1 and that the petitioner's Advocate had also remained absent before the Court when the application was considered. Hence, he seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC before the Executing Court in Ex.No.94/2016. In the interest of justice, leave and liberty sought for is granted. If an application is filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC within a week from today, the Executing Court shall consider the same in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Smt. Sundra Bai and Others vs Smt. Sonubai [ILR 2004 KAR 1558] and without being influenced by the order dated 23.07.2018 impugned herein.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Renukamma vs Sri R Gangadhar on 28 August, 2013

3. In my opinion, having regard to the facts of the case, there is no ground for stay of the execution proceeding. The application for stay is filed only to drag on the execution proceeding. The impugned order is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in Sundra Bai & Others vs. Smt. Sonubai [(2004) 2 KCCR 1305]. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The Executing Court is directed to dispose of the aforesaid execution proceeding in Ex.No.13/2012 expeditiously by strictly avoiding unnecessary adjournments in the matter.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - H G Ramesh - Full Document
1