Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Section 35 in The Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Ambati Narasayya vs M. Subba Rao & Anr on 6 October, 1989
10. According to the facts arising in the instant case, the sale has not yet taken place. The decree-holder is trying to bring 4 acres and 48 cents of property belonging to the judgment-debtor to sale. Even according to the decree-holder, the value of the said property would be Rs. 67,200. But according to the judgment-debtor, the value of the said property would be about Rs. 1,00,000. The decree amount is stated to be Rs. 6,020. Under such circumstances, the judgment-debtor contended that sale of a portion of the property would satisfy the decree amount and the entire property need not be brought to sale in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Ambatti Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao . Under such circumstances, I direct the execution court to consider whether the division of property and sale of a portion of the property would be advantageous to the judgment-debtor. If that is so, the property may be divided and a portion of the property can be brought to sale. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by the execution court in E.A. No. 560 of 1991 and restore the same to the file of the execution court with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law after taking into consideration the direction given above and after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
P.L.V. Giri vs A. Subramaniam And Anr. on 19 December, 1991
9. Yet another decision rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of P.L.V. Giri v. A. Subramaniam and Anr. (1992)2 L.W. 237, was also brought to my notice. While considering the facts arising on record in the abovesaid case in the light of provisions of Order 21, Rules 64,66 and 90, C.P.C., the learned single Judge held as under:
1