Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Rifakat Ali And Anr. vs Shyam Sunder And Ors. on 25 February, 2004 cites

Manmohan Dayal And Ors. vs Kailash Nath And Ors. on 9 May, 1957

In Manmohan Dayal and Ors. v. Kailash Nath and Ors., AIR 1957 All 647, Division Bench of this Court has observed that if an execution is already pending at the instance of the decree holder, his legal representatives, after his death need not make a fresh application for execution and it is sufficient that they apply for continuation of the proceedings in the pending execution."
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Baij Nath And Anr. vs Ram Bharos on 24 January, 1927

In the Division Bench decision of this Court in AIR 1957 All 647, in para 2 the Division Bench referred to a Full Bench decision Baij Nath v. Ram Bharose, AIR 1927 All 165, that the legal representatives of two deceased decree-holders were entitled to ask for continuation of the execution proceedings without moving any application for execution. In the facts of the case in hand particularly where the deceased decree-holder had already executed relinquishment deed in favour of remaining decree-holders the question of bringing on record their heirs (deceased decree-holders) is not at all necessary either in law or in the interest of justice.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Makkhan Lal Jaiswal And Ors. vs Executive Engineer And Ors. on 8 January, 2002

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramendra Asthana, argued that reading Order XXII Rule 12, C.P.C. along with Order XXI Rule 15 and in view of law laid down by this Court in Manmohan Dayal and Ors. v. Kailash Nath and Ors., AIR 1957 All 647, which is a Division Bench decision and a recent decision Makkhan Lal Jaiswal and Ors. v. Executive Engineer and Ors., 2002 (1) AWC 662. He particularly relied upon para 6 of the judgment which is reproduced below :
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - B K Rathi - Full Document
1