Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Akbar Ali Khan And Ors. vs Dr. Ishwar Saran on 1 May, 1957

Pagadala Chengayya And Anr. vs Noothanakalva Chenga Reddy on 31 March, 1959

16. Reliance is also placed by the Counsel for the appellants on Akbar Ali Khan v. Dr. Ishwar Saran, where, on a difference of opinion between Beg J., and Desai J., Mukerji J., concurred with Desai J. The problem to be solved there was whether an objection petition in answer to an execution petition under S. 47, C. P. C., should be treated as an application under Order 21 Rule 2 C. P. C. The objection petition contained a prayer that the execution proceedings taken, by the decree-holder should be dismissed by recording full satisfaction of the entire decree. The controversy there was whether the two conditions of Order 21 Rule 2 were fulfilled.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

P. Narasaiah vs P. Rajoo Reddy on 29 April, 1988

It is these observations which appear to have mainly influenced Amareswari, J. to hold that even if a payment or adjustment is not certified in accordance with Rule 2 of Order XXI, it can still be pleaded and has to been quired into as and when the decree-holder applies for execution, by virtue of Section 47. I am, however, unable to read the said observations in the manner understood by the learned Judge, It may firstly be pointed out that in the very same decision it was also observed, in para 13, that "there is, in our judgment, no antithesis between Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 2; the former deals with the power of the Court and the latter with the procedure to be followed in respect Of a limited class of cases relating to discharge or satisfaction of decree". Secondly, the whole discussion in that case related, to the question whether it was open to the judgment-debtor (wife) in that case to file an application to record satisfaction, when indeed the husband himself had not applied for, or taken out execution? It was held, after referring to a large number of cases, that such an application is maintainable, and can be filed. In the said decision there is no reference at all to Sub-r. (3) of Rule 2, nor was it a case where the question of the nature arising herein, arose for consideration. The observations extracted hereinabove were made to indicate that even though the wife's application did not fall under Order XXI, Rule 2, it fell within the ambit of Section 47.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1