Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.02 seconds)
Yatinder Rana vs Harpal Singh & Or.S on 7 April, 2015 cites

Partap Singh vs Narpat And Others on 16 February, 2010

In Partap Singh Vs. Narpat and others, 2011 (1) LJR 341 (P&H), the facts were that after dismissal of the first appeal the decree-holder immediately filed execution petition and also made a prayer to pay the balance amount. This Court observed that without an order of Executing Court, the Treasury or Bank would not have accepted RISHU KATARIA 2015.04.15 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-7103-2011 (O&M) -9- the balance sale price. The Executing Court passed the order on 20.11.2007 directing the decree-holder to deposit the balance sale consideration within a period of 20 days and accordingly the the decree- holder deposited the same on 23.11.2007. It was found that there was no lapse or default on the part of decree-holder. Even in that case the Appellate Court did not fix any time to deposit the balance sale price. That was a case in which agreement to sell was executed on 09.02.1994 and the suit was decreed on 29.04.2006. The operation of the judgment of trial Court was stayed in the appeal. Even Regular Second Appeal (RSA) preferred in this Court and Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were dismissed in 2007. The execution in that case was filed on 13.10.2006 but in execution petition, a prayer was made to deposit the balance amount. Later on, the subsequent vendee, however, filed the objections which were dismissed on 20.11.2007 and while dismissing the objection petition, twenty days time was granted to the decree-holder to deposit the balance sale consideration.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Ramankutty Gupta vs Avara on 3 February, 1994

In Ramankutty Guptan Vs. Avara, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1699, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that application for extension of time for payment of balance consideration may be filed even in the Court of first instance or in the Appellate Court in the same suit. It was also observed that procedure is the hand-maid for justice and unless the procedure touches upon the jurisdictional issue, it should be moulded to subserve substantial justice and therefore, technicalities would not stand in the way to subserve substantive justice. It was observed that RISHU KATARIA 2015.04.15 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-7103-2011 (O&M) -10- where the decree is transferred for execution, the transferee Executing Court is not the original Court and it would not be the same Court within the meaning of Section 28 of the Act, but when execution application has been made in the Court in which the original suit was filed and the execution is being proceeded with, then certainly an application under Section 28 of the Act is maintainable in the same Court. Moreover, even Executing Court can treat the application to be on original side of the trial court, if it happens to be the same Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 51 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Mohinder Singh And Another vs Satpal Singh And Others on 12 January, 2010

13. The facts of Sardar Mohar Singh's case (supra) were that the petitioner contracted to sell his land vide agreement dated 07.07.1977. Respondent, however, failed to perform his part of contract and petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 9A/78. The trial Court granted the decree for specific performance on 18.11.1987, directing the respondent to refund the earnest money within a period of three months and in default to execute the sale deed. The respondent (vendee) filed applications to rescind the decree in execution and sought extension of time for compliance. The Executing Court by order dated 15.03.1996 allowed both the applications of respondent (vendee) and directed him to deposit the amount within three days. The High Court, however, dismissed the revision but directed the respondent (vendee) to deposit a further sum of ` 16,000/-. This discretion exercised by the Executing Court as well as the High Court was found to be appropriate.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - A N Jindal - Full Document
1