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

2008 Supreme(AP) 400

G.V.SEETHAPATHY
T. Nabi Sab – Appellant
Versus
G. Venkatesulu – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
S.R Sanku, Counsel for the Petitioner;
L Kumara Swamy, Counsel for the Respondent No.2.

ORDER

Appea1 is directed against the order, dated 12.7.2007, in A$. No.15 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Anantapur wherein the said appeal preferred against the order dated 3.11.2005 in E.A. No.162 of 2003 in E.P. No.51 of 2002 in O.S. No.169 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur was dismissed.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant None appears for the respondent though served with notice. Perused the records.

3. Appellant herein is the claim petitioner who filed E.A. No.162 of 2003 in E.P. No.51 of 2002 in O.S. No.169 of 1996.

The said Execution Petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein against the 2nd respondent for realization of the decretal amount due in the decree passed in O.S. No.169 of 1996. The claim of the appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur on the ground that the petition filed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC is not maintainable as there was no attachment of the property and the decree sought to be executed was a mortgage decree. Appeal preferred by the appellant herein in A.S. No.15 of 2006 was also dismissed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Anantapur






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