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

1981 Supreme(Cal) 205

B.N.MAITRA
GOPAL CHANDRA NASKAR – Appellant
Versus
HIRANYA PROVA MOULICK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANATH NATH MONDAL, ASUTOSH GANGULY, Susil Kumar Sikdar, Tarak Nath Roy

B. N. MAITRA, J.

( 1 ) WHEN the execution proceedings were pending, the applicants, who are heirs of the judgment-debtors, filed a Misc. Case under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. The objection was twofold. It was alleged that previously the execution case was dismissed for default. No prayer was made by the decree-holders to vacate that order or to restore the execution case to file. The Court suo motu vacated the order and restored the execution case to its original number. So an illegal order was passed. Secondly, the judgment-debtor died on the 21st January, 1966. whereas the application for substitution was filed by the decree-holders on the 15th May, 1978. So the allegation was that the execution case became time-barred. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected both the contentions. Hence this revisional application.

( 2 ) IN this Court also those two objections have been pressed. It has been first stated that the order-sheet shows that on the 2nd September, 1967. decree-holders were directed to show cause why the execution case would not be struck off because no steps had been taken. So the case was fixed on the 20th Sep. , 1967. for orders. On that date the decree-holders too








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