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

1978 Supreme(Cal) 406

M.M.DUTT, D.C.CHAKRAVORTI
NIRMAL CHANDRA DUTTA – Appellant
Versus
GIRINDRA NARAYAN ROY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ARUN PRAKASH CHATTERJI, BANKIM DUTTA, PARTHA DUTTA, RAGHU NATH RAY

M. M. DUTT, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is at the instance of the decree-holder in an execution proceeding and it is directed against order No. 64 dated January 3, 1978 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Alipore. The only question that is involved in this Rule is whether the opposite party No, 3, the State of West Bengal was entitled to lodge a caveat under Section 148-A as introduced in the Civil P. C. by Section 50 of the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976.

( 2 ) ON May 31, 1975, the petitioner obtained a decree for ejectment and mesne profits against the judgment-debtors opposite parties in respect of the first floor and the top floor of premises No. 100, Dilkusha Street, Karaya, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 87 of 1973 of the Second Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore. On September 1, 1975, the petitioner put the said decree in execution in Title Execution Case No. 23 of 1975 when the Bailiff of the court accompanied by the petitioner went to deliver possession of the disputed premises, the judgment-debtors offered resistance and accordingly, the Bailiff could not execute the writ of delivery of possession and returned the same to the court together with his repor




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