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

1958 Supreme(Cal) 121

K.C.DAS GUPTA, U.C.LAW
KASI PROSAD KHAITAN – Appellant
Versus
MOTI LALL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.PRASANTA KUMAR GHOSE, PRAPHULLA KUMAR CHATTERJI, R.K.KHAITAN, SITI KANTHA LAHIRI

K. C. DAS GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THE question for consideration in this case is whether an application for execution, in which the mode in which the assistance of the court is required does not mention attachment or sale of the property but says that the decree-holder prays for realisation of the decretal dues by rateable distribution of the money that will he realised in Money Execution Case No. 26 of 1955 of this Court and other means, can be considered to be an application for execution validly made within the meaning of the section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If such an application can be considered to have been validly made the orders for rateable distribution made by the executing court must prevail. If, however, the mention of the mode in which the assistance of the Court is required in the manner set out above is a defect which makes the application one on which the execution cannot proceed, the court had no jurisdiction to make an order for rateable distribution. Rule 11, Sub-rule (2) of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procecture, sets out the particulars which every application for the execution of a decree shall contain. Item (j) in that list of particulars is in these wo



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