Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)
Dr. Adarsh Chopra vs Smt. Champa Devi on 20 December, 2004 cites

Antonysami vs Arulanandam Pillai (D) By Lrs & Anr on 30 October, 2001

17. The case relied upon by the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the present case the executing court vide order dated 23.8.1982, had dismissed the execution application holding that the decree was a nullity and not executable. During the period of order rejecting the execution application was operative the petitioner could not have moved the amendment application after 31.3.1984. It was only after the judgment of the High Court dated 26.9.2003, that the execution application became alive and the decree was held to be executable. There was no question of bar of limitation after 26.9.2003. None of the cases cited by the petitioner deal with a situation is in the present case. No advantage can be derived by the petitioner from the judgments relied upon. The case of. Antonysami v. Arulanandam, (supra) dealt with a situation where the decree holder failed to execute the decree either in full or in part within the limitation provided under law from the date mentioned in the decree and it was in these circumstances held that the execution applications were barred by law of limitation. There was no order in the said case dropping the execution proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 19 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document
1   2 Next