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

1969 Supreme(Cal) 309

P.N.MUKHERJEE, AMIYA KUMAR MUKHERJI
INDRAJIT CHOUBEY – Appellant
Versus
SITARAM AGARWALLA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Asoke Kumar Sen Gupta, MADHUSUDAN BANERJI, RANJIT KUMAR BANERJEE, SAMBHUNATH BANERJEE

P. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the judgment-debtors and it arises out of a proceeding for execution of a decree.

( 2 ) THE question, which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the claimants, under a partition of the decree-holder's interest can apply to continue the execution proceedings, started by the decree-holder.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge allowed the said application upon the view that the said claimants would be entitled to the relief, prayed for by them, under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 146. The judgment-debtors contend that, as, in the instant case, there was no notice given of the alleged assignment by partition, as required by the proviso to Order 21, Rule 16, the said provisions cannot aid the present Respondents.

( 4 ) THIS aspect of the matter may not be altogether free from difficulty and the point whether, on partition, there is really any assignment, may not be altogether free from controversy. We do not, however, think that it is necessary for us, for purposes of this case, to go Into that question, as, in our view, the present matter would be covered by Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Pr


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