Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)Kancherla Lakshminarayana vs Mattaparthi Syamala & Ors on 14 March, 2008
(i) AIR 2008 SCC 2069 (Kancherla Lakshminarayana Vs.
Mattaparthi Shyamala and Others) the relevant portion of the judgment
reads as follows:
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Magunta Mining Cp. vs M. Kondaramireddy And Anr. on 3 December, 1982
Learned counsel points out that merely
because of the auction of the suit
property, it cannot be said that the said
property is sold, thereby leaving no
right in or opportunity with the objector
to object to the attachment. Learned
counsel invited our attention to the
judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in M/s.Magunta Mining Co. v. M.
Kondaramireddy & Another [AIR
(1983) A.P. 335] where the similar
situation had arisen on the basis of an
application made by the appellant
under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. The
objector was none else but the son of
the Judgment-Debtor whose property
was auctioned. The objection was that
since there was a prior lease in respect
of the said property and since in
pursuance of that lease the objector-
1