Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Section 29 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Brahmdeo Choudhary vs Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr on 22 January, 1997
On the same lines, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & another, , where also it is held in no uncertain terms that the claim under Order 21, Rules 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure can only be by a person who is having an independent right.
Ubaldino Oliveira vs Sadanand Ladu Borkar, Since Deceased ... on 25 January, 1995
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also referred to another judgment of our High Court in Shri Ubaldino Oliveira v. Shri Sadanand Ladu Borkar & others, 1995(1) G.L.T. 318, wherein, in para 7 it is held in very clear terms that a person can resist the execution of a decree only if he has an independent right of his own.
Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998
The learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust & another, . In the said matter a sub-tenant who was not a party to the decree for eviction resisted the execution of the decree. In the said judgment the Apex Court after considering the various judgments and the scope of Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has observed as under:
Section 16 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Harihar Prasad Singh And Ors vs Balmiki Prasad Singh And Ors on 10 December, 1974
This Court after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh, , held that the learned Civil Judge had rightly concluded that though the petitioner had not been brought on record as a defendant in the suit, she was still very much bound by the said decree.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 8A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Bhanwari Lal vs Satyanarain And Another on 4 October, 1994
Further implication is that there is no bar for establishing the legal rights of the applicant herein, at the enquiry to be held under Order 21, Rules 97 & 101 of C.P.C. The decisions reported in Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain, and Shri Ubaldino Oliveira v. Shri Sadanand Ladu Borkar, 1995(1) Goa.L.T. 318 are also in the same lines, it is true that securing the fruits of the decree would be delayed but in the event of the applicant failing to prove any right, title & interest he shall face the consequence.