G.S.SINGHVI, ANIL R.DAVE, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
Satyawati – Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Singh – Respondent
ORDER
AS PER ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In relation to the difficulties faced by a decree holder in execution of the decree, in 1872, the Privy Council had observed that “…….the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree……”.
3. Even today, in 2013, the position has not been improved and still the decree holder faces the same problem which was being faced in the past. We are concerned with the case of the appellant-plaintiff who had succeeded in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad on 19th January, 1996. Decree was drawn in pursuance of the aforestated judgment but till today, the appellant-plaintiff is not in a position to get fruits of his success.
4. It is not in dispute that the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1993 in favour of the appellant has become final as it was not challenged before the High Court. In pursuance of the decree drawn, the appellant made several efforts to get the decree executed. His last effort, with which we are concerned, had been initiated in 1996, when he had approached the court of Additional Senior Division, Palwal with an Execution Petition for execution of the decree.
5.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.