Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Rajesh S/O. Shivaji Sharma, Nagpur vs Dr. Shyamsunder S/O Ratanlal Sharma, ... on 14 March, 2017 cites

Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan vs Hari Prasad Bhuyan & Ors on 20 November, 2002

5. The learned Advocate for the respondents/judgment- debtors has submitted that Order XX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that the decree shall contain the description of the immovable property sufficient to identify such property and the immovable property, can be identified by boundaries or by numbers in a record of settlement or survey and that decree should specify such boundaries or numbers and in the present case, the decree which is sought to be executed neither shows the boundaries of the immovable property in question nor number as per record of settlement or survey and therefore, the decree in question cannot be executed. To support the submission, the learned Advocate has relied on the judgment given ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2017 00:40:30 ::: 4 wp990.16 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan vs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 197. It is submitted that the executing Court has not non-suited the decree- holder and has rightly left it open for the decree-holder to seek amendment to the decree so that it is in consonance with the provisions of Order XX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and then file execution proceedings. It is argued that the impugned order is proper and it cannot be said that there is any error of jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 77 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1