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

2012 Supreme(Kar) 269

S.ABDUL NAZEER
T. R. Parameshwarappa – Appellant
Versus
T. V. Annaiah – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:R.G. Halesha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:H. Kantharaja, Advocate.

Judgment

1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner was the defendant in O.S. No.15 of 2010 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC and the respondent was the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The said suit was decreed on 17-9-2011. Feeling aggrieved by the said decree, the defendant filed an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Tarikere in R.A. No. 5 of 2011. He filed an application seeking stay of the said decree. Since there was delay in filing the appeal, the defendant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Before consideration of the application seeking condonation of delay, he pressed into service of the application seeking stay of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the said application by the impugned order.

3. Order 41, Rule 3-A(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 states that where an application has been made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall not make an order for stay of execution of the decree against which the appeal is proposed t


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