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

1999 Supreme(Kar) 40

H.N.TILHARI
R. KOMALA – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMED IQBAL – Respondent


H. N. TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of C. P. C. arises from the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.) Doddaballapur in Ex. No. 29/98 allowing the execution petition.

( 2 ) ). The suit for specific performance of contract namely suit No. 12/92 was decreed by the trial Court judgment and decree dated 26-11-1997. The decree-holder filed an application for execution of decree on 27-2-1998. The judgment-debtor took objection that the decree-holder had not deposited the sum of Rs. 25,000/- within the period and the application moved by the decree-holder for permission to deposit be rejected. It was alleged that the decree-holder had sworn a false affidavit that the judgment-debtor had failed to receive the said amount and sought permission to deposit the said amount and that amount having been deposited three months beyond the period. So, decree-holder had not complied with the Court's direction as such the application be rejected. The Execution Court considered the affidavit filed by the decree-holder and in the absence of any counter affidavit being filed by the judgment-debtor challenging the averments made in the affidavit, accepted the av







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