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

1991 Supreme(AP) 301

N.D.PATNAIK
B. Narasappa – Appellant
Versus
B. Govindappa – Respondent


N. D. PATNAIK, J.

( 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

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