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

1984 Supreme(AP) 2

M.JAGANNADHA RAO
T. E. GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
KULAPAKA SAMBAMURTHY – Respondent


M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) A question relating to the application of the new provision introduced in Order 21, Rule 54 (1a) CPC arises in this revision.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in this revision petition is the judgment-debtor. He filed an application E. A. No. 440/1983 under Section 47, CPC in E. P. No. 178/82 in O. S. No. 1425/80 in the Court of the District Munsif, Visa-khapatnam. The relief claimed in that application was for estimating and mentioning the market value of the E. P. Schedule property before the same was put to sale. The property was a building in Visakhapatnam town in an extent of about 300 square yards and it is a terraced building. The amount due under the execution petition is Rs. 10,233-75. On 18-4-1983 the Court below rejected the application filed by the judgment-debtor for valuation of the property and proceeded with the sale. This revision is directed against the order refusing to value the property and state the judgment-debtor s value in the sale proclamation.

( 3 ) THIS revision was filed in this Court on 23-5-1983 and the sale having been held on 25-4-1983 the petitioner asked for stay of confirmation of sale. In CMP No. 5465 of 1983 this Court granted st





















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