Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
Shaikh Jalil S/O Shaikh Abed vs Mohamed Rizwanul Haq S/O Mobinul Haq And ... on 5 December, 2018 cites

Jitendra Singh vs Bhanu Kumari & Ors on 11 April, 2008

In the case of Jitendra Singh v. Bhanu Kumari & ors reported in AIR 2008 SC 2987, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power conferred by Section 24 CPC is discretionary and the same may be exercised suo motu as well as for any administration reason, but when an application for transfer is made by a party, the court is required to issue notice to the other side and hear the parties before directing transfer. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed, "To put it differently, the Court must act judicially in ordering a transfer on the application of a party". This would make it clear to us that in such a case, the duty is to act judicially to prevent any prejudice from being caused to the party. In the present case, it is seen that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner nor any specifics of the prejudice likely to be caused have been spelt out by the petitioner. On the ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:57:31 ::: 20 other hand, if this order is upset on this ground, it would result in further delay and prejudice to the decree-holder and then, in my humble opinion, the Court would be failing in its duty to act judicially in a case where the order of the High Court issued to the executing court to execute the decree satisfactorily within six months has attained finality.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 30 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Tirupati Co-Operative Town Bank ... vs Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, ... on 10 December, 2002

29. These principles of law would apply to a case wherein the description of the suit property is vague or the suit property is unidentifiable and the mistake has been corrected by the executing court or the clarification has been given by the executing court which amounts to going behind the decree. Similarly, these principles of law would not apply where description of the suit property is clear and the property is identifiable. Between these two categories of cases, there could be an intermediate category where there is some doubt about description of the property. In such intermediate category of cases, the executing court can make efforts to remove the doubt by examining the pleadings of the parties and the findings recorded by the court passing the decree. Some time in such cases, there arises a conflict between the area and boundaries of the suit property. In case of such a conflict, the law is that statement as to boundaries shall prevail. (See: The Palestine Kupat AM Bank Cooperative Society v. Government of Palestine, 1948 Privy Council 21 and T. Rajlu Naidu v. M.E. R. Maslak, AIR 1939 Nagpur
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

P. Chandrasekharan & Others vs S. Kanakarajan & Others on 27 April, 2007

28. Now, let us deal with the second impugned order dated 17.4.2018. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this order is illegal as it goes behind the decree. He submits that the description of the suit property itself being vague, the decree is unenforceable. This has been disagreed to by learned counsel for the respondents. While it is true that when description of the suit property is not clear and the suit property is not identifiable, the Court of Law should refrain from passing a decree which is not capable of enforcement. It is equally true that it is impermissible for the executing court to rectify description of the property incorrectly described in the decree itself and it is for the court which passed the decree to correct the mistake in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These are the settled principles of law and for this purpose a useful reference can be made to ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:57:31 ::: 22 the cases of Pawan Kumar Dutt & anr v. Shakuntala Devi & ors reported in (2010) 15 SCC 601 and P. Chandrasekharan & ors v. S. Kanakarajan & ors reported in (2007) 5 SCC 669 as also Krishnaya Parbhaya Chintalwar & ors v. Meghraj Paparam Teli reported in 1939 ILR 708.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 72 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Krishnaya Parbhaya Chintalwar vs Meghraj Paparam Teli on 21 June, 1939

28. Now, let us deal with the second impugned order dated 17.4.2018. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this order is illegal as it goes behind the decree. He submits that the description of the suit property itself being vague, the decree is unenforceable. This has been disagreed to by learned counsel for the respondents. While it is true that when description of the suit property is not clear and the suit property is not identifiable, the Court of Law should refrain from passing a decree which is not capable of enforcement. It is equally true that it is impermissible for the executing court to rectify description of the property incorrectly described in the decree itself and it is for the court which passed the decree to correct the mistake in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These are the settled principles of law and for this purpose a useful reference can be made to ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:57:31 ::: 22 the cases of Pawan Kumar Dutt & anr v. Shakuntala Devi & ors reported in (2010) 15 SCC 601 and P. Chandrasekharan & ors v. S. Kanakarajan & ors reported in (2007) 5 SCC 669 as also Krishnaya Parbhaya Chintalwar & ors v. Meghraj Paparam Teli reported in 1939 ILR 708.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1