Back
B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Kathika Nageswara Rao, S/o. Subba Rao – Appellant
Versus
Mulasa Satyanarayana (Died), S/o. Suryanarayana – Respondent
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is directed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) against the Order, dated 15.09.2015 in E.P.No.57 of 2014 in O.S.No.434 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, where under the execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against judgment-debtor No.7, for issuance of notice under Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC and attachment, was ‘Allowed’.
2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for revision-petitioner/judgment-debtor No.7 and Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel respondent No.1/decree-holder.
3. The learned counsel for revision-petitioner/judgment-debtor No.7 would submit that the Trial Court committed material irregularity by not recognizing the payment made by the revision-petitioner/judgment-debtor No.7 to the respondent No.1/decree-holder towards full and final settlement of the decree debt and ordered for execution.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/decree-holder would submit that in view of Rule 1, 2 and 3 of Order XXI of CPC a
A payment or adjustment of a decree outside the Court must be recorded within thirty (30) days from the date of payment or adjustment. A payment or adjustment not recorded within the said period shal....
The court emphasized the limited grounds on which a decree is unexecutable and highlighted that the right of the Decree Holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decre....
The executing court cannot go behind the decree unless it is a nullity, and re-agitating objections already dismissed in a previous petition would amount to an abuse of process of law.
An execution court is obligated to sell only such portion of the property as is necessary to satisfy the decree, and selling the entire property without examining this aspect is illegal and without j....
The court emphasized the application of Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC in cases of substantial irregularities causing injury to the judgment-debtor and cited legal precedents to support its decision.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
