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

1994 Supreme(SC) 569

KULDIP SINGH, YOGESHWAR DAYAL
Mohan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Hari Prasad Yadav: Parmanand Gupta – Respondent


Judgment

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J

(1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Judge of the High court of Patna dated 26/4/1983 whereby the Single Judge set aside an order dated 28-5-1982 passed by the executing court in Execution Case No. 7 of 1977 while giving the benefit of Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) to the judgment-debtor.

(2) UNDOUBTEDLY the sale took place on 25/5/1981 and even the objections, which were filed for setting aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code were dismissed on 4/5/1982. An application purporting to be under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code was filed on 28/5/1982. It may be mentioned that even an appeal has been filed against the order of the executing court dated 4/5/1982 dismissing the objections to the sale filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code. After the dismissal of the objections under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code the executing court granted time for moving the High court till 22/5/1982 and the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the executing court dismissing objections under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code stood dismissed on 21-12-1

















































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