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

1986 Supreme(AP) 285

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, M.N.RAO
SAMMAC ENTERPRISES, A REGISTERED FIRM REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MUDUMBAI PADMAVATHI – Appellant
Versus
RAVULA VEERA RAGBAVA RAO – Respondent


M. N. RAO, J.

( 1 ) 1. These two revision petitions concern with Section 64 of the Civil procedure Code and they have come before us on a refererence by our learned brother Ramanujulu Naidu, J. The order of reference reads :"in these two revision petitions the question raised is whether a attachment of a certain property at the instance of one creditor enures for the benefit of other subsequent creditors of the judgement-debtor who apply for execution before realisation of the assets of judgement-debtor by the attaching Court so as to defeat the rights of the inte vening mortgagees. In other words, the scons of the explanation appended under Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure fills for examination and determination. As the question raised bafors me is of frequent occurrence and the executing Courts are invariably called upon to deal with the claims arising under Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure i am of the opinion that an authoritative pronouncement onihis question by a Division Bench of this Court is necessary".

( 2 ) BOTH the civil revision petitions arise out of a conmon order made by the learned 1 Addl Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in a batch of applications dis















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