Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.44 seconds)
M/S. Hasnatey Burhanaiayah Fiddiayah ... vs Kamalkishor S/O Laxminarayan Chandak on 3 January, 2023 cites

Shaikh Chand Shaikh Ahmed Died Through ... vs Zaitunbee Shaikhlal Died Through Lrs ... on 7 September, 2017

That apart, the earlier execution application, i.e., Special Darkhast No.135/2005 was not decided finally, nor was it fixed for hearing as contemplated by Order 21 Rule 105 of CPC on 05/07/2011 when it was dismissed for want of steps, considering which, as held in M/s. Botanium Limited WP 1962 of 2022.odt 13 and Shaikh Chand (supra), the dismissal would not be one under Order 21 Rule 105 (2) of CPC, as a result of which Order 21 Rule 106 (1) of CPC would clearly also not be attracted and in such cases it would be permissible for the decree holder to file an application for restoration within a reasonable period of time.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

Surinder Pal Soni vs Sohan Lal (D) Thru Lr on 23 July, 2019

Insofar as the plea regarding applicability of the doctrine of merger is concerned, the doctrine of merger contemplates a challenge on merits, to the decree being decided by the Appellate Court in which case then the decree of the Trial Court merges into the decree of the Appellate Court and it is the decree of the Appellate Court which becomes executable, as has been held in Surinder Pal Soni Vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) through Legal Representatives (2020) 15 SCC 771. In the instant case what is material to note is that the WP 1962 of 2022.odt 7 original decree dated 09/08/2004 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.256/2001, was not in challenge in M.J.C. No.33/2006, which was an application for condonation of delay, and therefore, the doctrine of merger would not be applicable, for the petitioner/decree holder, to take the benefit of dismissal of Writ Petition No.4518/2018 on 12/03/2019, which upheld the order of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 15 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Jasraj Lalaji Oswal vs Raziya Mehboob Patel And Anr on 18 December, 2019

Legal Heir 2018 (6) ALL MR 904, Jasraj Lalaji Oswal Vs. Raziya Mehboob Patel and another, Writ Petition No.4294/2018 decided on 18/12/2019, Chhattar Singh and another Vs. Kamal Singh and others, 1926 SCC OnLine Allahabad 258 (FB), Pentapati China Venkanna and others Vs. Pentapati Bangararaju and others AIR 1964 SC 1454, Smt. Suglabai w/o Prabhu Jaishete and another Vs. Rangrao s/o Govindrao (Since died through his L.Rs.)
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 3 - D S Naidu - Full Document

Chhattar Singh And Anr. vs Kamal Singh And Ors. on 10 November, 1926

In Chhattar Singh (supra) while considering the proposition, that the decree for sale dated 07/06/1913 was put to execution on 04/01/1916 which were transferred to the Collector on 23/03/1916, another proceeding came to be filed for declaration that the property was not liable to be sold in auction which ultimately came to be decided by the High Court on 06/07/1920. In the subsequent suit, the execution proceedings before the Collector was stayed which came to be withdrawn by the judgment of the High Court dated 06/07/1920. On 17/08/1920 the Collector took up the execution proceedings and finding that no steps were taken to prosecute directed the papers to be returned to the Court of the Sub- ordinate Judge, who on 31/08/1920 without issuing notice to either of the parties ordered the application for execution to be struck off the list of pending applications and an entry be made in the register of decided cases accordingly. On 10/01/1923 the decree-holders filed another application for execution, which came to be dismissed on account of limitation. Considering the above position, it was held that though the second application was styled as an application for WP 1962 of 2022.odt 12 execution, in sum and substance it was an application to revive the earlier execution application and therefore since the earlier execution application was not finally decided, directed that the original application for execution should be proceeded to be decided.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 Next