SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 1228

S.RAJENDRA BABU, RUMA PAL
Challamane Huchha Gowda – Appellant
Versus
M. R. Tirumala – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-Leave Granted.

2. In execution of a decree the executing Court brought the properties owned by the Petitioner-Judgment Debtor for sale. Proclamation was published on 19/07/1992. On 26/08/1992 the scheduled properties were put up for auction. The final bid was offered by respondent No. 1 in Court on 28/08/1992. On 25.9.1992 the Petitioner-Judgment Debtor paid the entire decretal amount together with the cost to the Respondent No. 2 - Decree Holder accompanied by memorandum of objections for confirmation of sale. A memo was also filed praying to close the execution proceedings. On 30/10/1992 another Memo was filed in the Executing Court reporting the payment of the decree amount. Then the executing Court directed the Petitioner - Judgment Debtor to pay solatium to the Respondent No. 1 - Auction Purchaser. Executing Court also noted that the Respondent No 1 - Auction Purchaser was not ready to accept the solatium amount. In the meanwhile, on 13/11/1992 Respondent No. 1 - Auction Purchaser filed an Interlocutory Application under Order 21, Rule 92 of CPC for confirmation of sale. On 24.07.1993 the Petitioner - Judgment Debtor filed an application to treat the e

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top