Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Inder Singh vs Piara Singh And Another on 1 September, 1992
Inder Singh vs Piara Singh & Anr AIR 1993 P&H 83 - it is held that as
per Order XXI rule 35, the possession of the immovable property
covered by a decree can be delivered to the decree holder by
removing a person bound by the decree only. In other words, a
person who establishes that he is not bound by decree passed
against any other person, cannot possible be dispossessed in
execution of that decree. The executing court is bound to consider
the application of a person, in possession, where he was not a party
to the decree, before he is dispossessed.
Bhagwat Narayan Dwivedi vs Kasturi D/O Ramdayal, A.N.M., Civil ... on 31 July, 1973
3. Bhagwat Narayan Dwivedi vs Kasturi D/o Ramdayal AIR 1974 MP 26
Nusserwanji E. Poonegar And Ors. vs Shirinbai F. Bhesania And Ors. on 12 January, 1984
4. Nusserwanji E. Poonegar & Ors vs Mrs. Shirinbai F. Bhesania & Ors
AIR 1984 Bombay 357 - wherein it was held that issues must be
framed, the attention of the parties must be focused upon the points
which are to be decided, evidence must to allowed to be led and
documents should be allowed to be produced and relied upon. The
adjudication under Rule 101 cannot be made on the basis of an
affidavit alone unless the parties themselves so desire.
Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998
5. Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. vs Rajiv Trust & Anr 1998 (3) SCC 723 -
held that executing court has a duty to decide that whether the person
who is resisting/obstructing to vacate the property is bound by the
decree.
Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003
8. Ahsan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors AIR 2004 SC 511 - held
that the legislature purposely amended provisions in order XXI to
enable the third parties to seek adjudication of their rights in execution
proceedings themselves with a view to curtail the prolongation of
litigation and arrest delay caused in execution of decrees. Further, a
third party resisting or obstructing the execution of the decree can
also seek adjudication of his rights under order XXI rule 97 CPC in
the same way as the decree holder.
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
9. S.P. Chengalvarayanaidu vs Jagannath 1994 (1) SCC 1 - it is held
that no equity is to be exercised in favour of person who has played
fraud upon the court and the said question can be determined even in
collateral proceedings.
Kancherla Lakshminarayana vs Mattaparthi Syamala & Ors on 14 March, 2008
10.Kancherla Lakshminarayana vs Mattaparthi Syamala & Ors 2008 (14)
SCC 258 - held that the provisions of order XXI rule 58 CPC read
with the provisions of order XXI rule 101 CPC spell out the duty of the
court to adjudicate all the questions relating to the rights of the parties
and that the executing court had failed to consider the provisions in
MCA No. 02/12 Page 10
Arjun Bulandani & Anr vs Babita Chawla
the proper perspective and it should have decided as to whether the
decree between the first the second respondents is a collusive decree
merely meant to defeat the right of the appellant.
Minakshi Saini And Ors. vs Gurcharan Singh Bharmra And Ors. on 13 February, 2002
1. Minakshi Saini & Ors vs Gurcharan Singh Bharmia & Ors Vol. CXXXI
(20022) The Punjab Law Reporter 439 - held that framing of issues
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it
is not incumbent upon the executing court that it must put to trial
every objected filed in execution proceedings may be frivolous,
vexations and delay causing objections can be summarily decided.
Shreenath & Another vs Rajesh & Others on 13 April, 1998
1. Shreenath and Anr vs Rajesh & Ors AIR 1998 SC 1827 - It is held
that the expression "any person" under subcl. (1) of rule 97 is used
deliberately for widening the scope of power so that the Executing
Court could adjudicate the claim made in any such application under
order XXI rule 97. thus by the use of the words "any person", it
includes all person resisting the delivery of possession, claiming right
in the property even those not bound by the decree, includes tenants
or other persons claiming right on their own including a stranger.