Back
M.R.SHAH, B.V.NAGARATHNA
Bangalore Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
N. Nanjappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition Nos. 37943-37944/2015 (GM-CPC), by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions preferred by the original applicant-Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’) and has confirmed the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the applications filed by BDA under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in Execution Case No. 2713/2012 filed by respondent No. 1 herein (decree holder) against respondent No. 2 herein (judgment debtor), the BDA has preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:
Execution of decree – All questions including questions relating to right, title or interest in property arising between parties to a proceeding on an application under Order XXI rule 97 or rule 99 C....
Executing Court has authority to adjudicate all questions pertaining to right, title or interest in property arising between parties including claim of a stranger who apprehends dispossession from im....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the conclusive nature of the determination between the parties and the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, and the application of this pr....
Conflicting claims of ownership and rights over the land require adjudication through trial, and the court refrained from making any decision on the merits of the claims.
The executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order, which is to be treated as a decree. T....
The duty of the Executing Court to entertain and decide questions arising out of execution proceedings, as provided under Section 47 of CPC and Order 21 Rule 97 to Rule 101.
A third party claiming under a judgment debtor cannot file an application under Order XXI Rule 97; they must file under Rule 99 instead.
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
