N.D.PATNAIK
B. Narasappa – Appellant
Versus
B. Govindappa – Respondent
( 1 ) IN execution of the mortgage decree obtained by the first respondent, the hypothecated property wasbrought to sale in EP No. 59/83 in O. S. No. 13/81 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Kalyandurg. The petitioner herein and another filed a claim petition EA No. 72/85 contending that they are the purchasers of the property and that the property has been sold at a low price. They filed another application EA No. 157/88 to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the land in question in order to ascertain its value. The learned District Munsif dismissed the application, against which this revision is filed.
( 2 ) THE learned District Munsif held that the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9 CPC are not made applicable to execution proceedings in view of Section 141 C. P. C. and therefore, dismissed the petition.
( 3 ) IN this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though the petition under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC is not maintainable, it can be maintained under Section 151 CPC under inherent powers of the Court. But what the learned counsel for the respondent contends is that when once under S. 141 CPC the provisions are not applicable to exe
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.