Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)
Smt. Rajinder Kaur vs S.K. Malhotra on 19 August, 1999 cites

Harbans Singh Grewal vs Puran Singh on 5 June, 1990

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ judgment-debtor has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Harbans Singh Grewal v. Puran Singh (deceased) by his L. Rs., 1990 Pun LJ 400. It has been held therein that the Court can extend the time granted in the decree having resort to the provisions of Section 148, Civil Procedure Code, if there was no direction in the decree that on failure to deposit the amount within the specified time, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mohinder Singh vs Gurdial Singh And Anr. on 29 August, 1996

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ judgment-debtor has argued that in the light of the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions, the trial Court having passed a peremptory order became functus officio. It had no jurisdiction to extend the time for the deposit of the balance sale consideration. Since the decree-holder did not deposit the money within the period of six months as laid down by the trial Court in its peremptory order, the decree automatically became inexecutable. The decree-holder was bound to deposit the money in view of the unambiguous peremptory order.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 18 - S Kumar - Full Document

Dattatraya vs Shaikh Mahaboob Shaikh Ali on 24 October, 1968

In Dattatraya v. Shaikh Mehaboob Shaikh Ali AIR 1970 SC 750, it has been held by the Supreme Court that where a decree Imposed obligations on both sides and obligations are so conditioned that the performance by one is conditional on the performance by the other, the obligations are reciprocal and are inter-linked so that they cannot be separated. If the defendants, by obtaining the stay order from the High Court, relieve themselves of the obligations to deliver possession of the properties, the plaintiff/decree-holder must also be deemed thereby to be relieved of the necessity on depositing the money so long as the stay order continues.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Jai Singh vs Puran Singh And Anr. on 25 May, 1990

In Jai Singh v. Puran Singh, 1990 (2) 98 Pun LR 569, similar view has been taken. The facts were like this: Two months time was allowed by the trial Court for the deposit of the sale consideration. An appeal was filed by the judgment-debtor which was dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, an order was obtained staying the dispossession. At the time of the dismissal of the appeal, no time was allowed to the plaintiff to deposit the remaining sale consideration. Application under Section 148 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, was filed before the Additional District Judge, who permitted the decree-holder to deposit the remaining sale consideration within one month. On the facts of that case, the order of the Additional District Judge was upheld.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1