cause for non appearance for the hearing date had been adduced. The decree holder society has become defunct since 1987, the execution proceedings would ... application without affording opportunity has lead to facilitating execution of unexecutable decree. Instead of disposing the application on merits, dismissing it on technicalities
decree was not complied with,
the decree holder/mortgagee sought for a final decree in I.A.No.1001 of
2002. A final decree ... Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a declaration that
the decree is unexecutable, since the interest has been granted at 21% pa.,
which is against
filed because of the simple fact that the Judgment and Decree have become unexecutable because of the policy directives of Securities and Exchange Board ... Petitioner/Appellant has come to know that the decree obtained has become unexecutable etc. and because of the fact that the Petitioner has filed
Additional
District Court, Tirupati has become unexecutable due to the
death of the Decree holder.
ii) issue consequential orders cancelling the
investigation by the respondent ... cannot be made that on the death of a decree
holder the decree has become unexecutable.
4. The second prayer is a consequential
Principal Sub court, Ernakulam. The decree is for realisation of money.
In E.P.No.30 of 2013 the petitioner alleged that there ... parties after the passing of the decree and in view of the
compromise the decree has become unexecutable. The contention of
the respondent/decree holder
amount also creating charge over the property. Such
decree and judgment is a nullity and unexecutable as against the 2nd
defendant. The legal heirs
dated
12.12.2002 itself registered at SRO, Avadi and thus, the decree itself
is an unexecutable one, without any prayer for declaration challenging
the said sale
item No.1 could be sold first for realisation of the
decree debt. Petitioner has accordingly filed a sketch
(Annexure I). Learned counsel for petitioners ... decree for money obtained in a
suit of the year, 1989, though exeucution petition was filed in
the year, 2004, remains unexecuted for whatever reasons
setting aside
the said exparte decree and the same was dismissed on 12.03.2003.
Subsequently, the first respondent filed a petition ... setting aside the exparte decree and the same was allowed on
08.01.2004. The said order was set aside by this Court
basis of the schedule of rate of
1990, became irrelevant, inapplicable and unexecutable. The
request for reasonable hike in the rate was also not accepted ... declared to be released to the plaintiff. He is entitled for
a decree for 4,76,000/- with 12% future interest on the principal
amount
