Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.42 seconds)
Kewal Singh vs Umesh Mishra on 24 March, 1983 cites

Janki Mohan And Anr. vs Dr. S. Samaddar And Ors. on 22 December, 1961

Gopal Chandra Saha (AIR 1937 Cal 390) relying on a catena of decisions of this Court again held and confirmed the previous view that when a sale had actually taken place the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim or objection filed under Order 21. Rule 58. It may be mentioned, at this place, that in this Bench decision the same point was raised as has been referred to by the learned single Judge in this appeal as on the doubt that the sale really completes when it is made absolute and, therefore, the bar to file an objection under Rule 58 may perhaps stand after the sale becomes absolute and not when it is held but such a point was taken before their Lordships in that Bench decision which was rejected (vide report at page 392 second column). This point was again raised in a Bench decision of this Court in Janki Mohan v. Dr. S. Samoddar (AIR 1962 Pat 403) in which also it has been held that the objection-
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Subhash Chandra vs Har Govind Singh on 12 July, 1977

In this connection reference may be made to Section 128 of the Code under which such amendments are made by the High Court. Section 128 provides that such rules framed by the High Court shall not be inconsistent with the provision in the body of this Code. At this place it may be mentioned that while in the Patna Amendment a different procedure with respect to the investigation of claim made under Rule 58 and its disposal and the forum of redress has been provided, which is different from the present amended central Rule 58 inasmuch as in the Patna Amendment there is a provision that the claim filed under Rule 58 shall be "Investigated" while in the present amended Central R, 58 the provision is that on such a claim being filed the claim will be 'adjudicated' by the Executing Court. In view of the difference between the nature of the decision an enquiry made on a claim-petition filed under Rule 58 between the Patna Amendment and the present amended Central Rule 58 (namely, that while in the former it was a claim to be 'investigated', in the latter it was to be 'adjudicated') a difference was also made in the forum of redress as in the former case after the decision made on such a claim in Rule 58 the forum prescribed is for filing a suit under Rule 63 while in the latter, namely, in the amended Central Rule 58, the decision given in such enquiry has the status of a decree, therefore there is a provision for an appeal against such an adjudication. Thus, it would be found that there are fundamental differences, which may be said to be strong inconsistency between the Patna amendment and the amended Central Rule 58 as amend-ed by the Act of 1976 and, therefore, the Patna Amendment really should be deemed to have been abrogated by coming into force of the Central Rule 58 by the Amendment Act of 1976. Such was also the view expressed by this Court in three cases, namely, in Subhas Chandra v. Har Govind Singh (AIR 1978 Pat, 260).
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1