Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.42 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Shaukat Hussain Alias Ali Akram & Ors vs Smt. Bhuneshwari Devi (Dead)) By L. Rs. & ... on 25 August, 1972
judgment of the Supreme Court in SHAUKAT HUSSAIN v.
BHUNESHWARI DEVI and also a judgment of this Court in PUJARI
SUBBAIAH v. LAKKAPPANAVARA.
Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bub vs Sita Saran Bubna & Ors on 21 August, 2009
This Court made a similar
observation in Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v Sita
Saran Bubna15, wherein it recommended that the Law Commission and
the Parliament should bestow their attention to provisions that enable
frustrating successful execution. The Court opined that the Law
Sri Krishna Singh vs Mathura Ahir And Ors on 21 December, 1979
The power to stay execution of the decree under Order 21 Rule 29 of
CPC is discretionary. The discretion should be exercised judicially and
not mechanically as a matter of course. On mere satisfaction of the pre-
condition stipulated in Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC, the execution
proceeding is not to be stayed. The power under this rule has to be
exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of justice requires
it. The fundamental consideration should be that the decree holder is not
to be deprived of the fruits of the decree except for good reasons. The
decree must be allowed to be executed and unless an extraordinary
case is made out, no stay should be granted. As held by the Supreme
Court in KRISHNA SINGH v. MATHURA AHIR , the jurisdiction to stay
execution of the decree under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC has to be
exercised with very great care and only in special cases.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Babu Lal vs Hazari Lal Klshori Lal & Ors on 29 January, 1982
The Supreme court
noted that inspite of such observations in 1925, the Supreme Court,
in Babu Lal vs. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal 8 was constrained to observe that
M/S. Marshall Sons & Co.(I) Ltd vs M/S.Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. And Anr on 29 January, 1999
In Satyawati (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court made reference
to Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd.9, in which the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had noted that execution proceedings are
dragged for a long time on one count or the other and, on occasion,
become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity at every
stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the delay,
unscrupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and a
person who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal
of the cases by taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It
is also a known fact 6 (1871-72) 14 MIA 605: 20 ER 912 7 AIR 1925
Oudh 448 (PC) 8 (1982) 1 SCC 525 9 (1999) 2 SCC 325 15 of 17 skc
926-WP-9418-17 that after obtaining a decree for possession of
immovable property, its execution takes a long time.