portion only for residing purpose, then there would be no ejectment. The Execution Court was also directed to find whether on the date of enforcement ... view that the point referred to "Execution Court" even though not taken by the Execution Court, but was taken by the trial court
date of knowledge of the ejectment suit i.e., on 03.08.1985, when
he received the notice in the execution petition No.118/1985 ... aware of the
ejectment suit only on 03.08.1985 when the defendant in the suit
K.Natarajan received the notice in the execution petition
suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object
proprietary or executability of the decree during the pendency of the execution petition, it would squarely fall under section 47 CPC and therefore, the decision ... judgment debtor. Originally the suit was filed by the defendant for ejecting him from the property after removing the superstructure in the suit property
Civil Procedure Code for staying all further proceedings in the above said execution petition. In support of the said miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has filed ... that the respondent obtained exparte decree of ejectment by covering up the earlier round of litigation for ejectment filed against the petitioner, which ended
N.Babu vs S.Shanmugam on 15 November, 2012
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R
K.B.Nawabjan vs Lodd Ramgopal on 3 September, 2012
Author: V. Periya Karuppiah
Bench
Munusamy Gounder vs Palani Gounder on 7 June, 2012
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
Rethinakumar vs Anbanathapuram Vagayara Dharma Pagam on 26 April, 2012
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench
Sivanandan vs Sathyabama Ammal (Since Deceased) on 18 December, 2012
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench
