Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI
Hemalatha – Appellant
Versus
P. Kanaka Bhushnam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
2. The petitioner is the defendant/judgment debtor No.3.
3. The plaintiff respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.147 of 2011 for a decree directing the defendants to vacate and surrender vacant possession of the plaint scheduled property, as also for payment of the arrears of rent and damages.
4. The suit was decreed vide judgment/decree dated 24.11.2017 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
5. The plaintiff died on 24.11.2017 itself.
6. The respondent No.1, son of the original plaintiff/decree holder, filed E.P.No.12 of 2020.
7. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati by order dated 03.03.2023 issued delivery warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C.
8. Challenging the order dated 03.03.2023 the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the E.P was filed under Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C which provision is not applicable. In his submission, the application ought to have been filed under Order XXI Rule 36 C.P.C., as the petitioner/judgment debtor is the tenant
The Court retains control over a decree for specific performance and is empowered to grant ancillary reliefs to protect its orders and give them sanctity.
Subsequent purchasers possess the legal right to execute possession decrees under CPC without needing an assignment of the decree.
Court neither loses its jurisdiction after grant of decree for specific performance nor it becomes functus officio – If an ancillary or incidental relief is not granted, there would be no value to de....
The decree for specific performance inherently includes the right to possession, making separate requests for possession unnecessary unless specific circumstances require it.
The executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order, which is to be treated as a decree. T....
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of Order 21 post amendment wherein the executing court has to determine under Rule 101 Order 21 of the Code that the question raised has legally arisen between the parties ....
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
