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

1953 Supreme(Bom) 167

H.K.CHAINANI, R.S.BAVDEKAR
Bandu Hari – Appellant
Versus
Bhagya Laxman. – Respondent


Judgment - Chainani, J.

1. The material facts, so far as this appeal is concerned, are these. In 1939 respondent 3 filed a suit against respondents 1 and 2 for possession of the suit property which he had previously purchased. A consent decree was passed in that suit on 24-1-1941. By the compromise, respondent 3 gave up his claim to the suit land, while respondent 1, who it appears was the contesting defendant, agreed to pay him a sum of Rs. 125 ana interest thereupon in four equal instalments, the first instalment being payable in December 1941. The decree placed a charge on the suit property and provided that in case of default in the payment of any instalment, respondent 3 could recover the amount by sale of the suit property. As the first two instalments, which fell due in December 1941 and December 1942, were not paid, respondent 3 filed a darkhast for recovering the amount of these instalments by sale of the suit property.

This darkhast was filed on 12-4-1943, that is, more than two years after the date of the decree. Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P. C., provides:

"Where an application for execution is made morethan two years after the date of the decree...... the Court executing the






















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