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

1895 Supreme(Cal) 38

MACPHERSON, BANERJEE
Sham Lal Pal – Appellant
Versus
Modhu Sudan Sircar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ. - In this case a decree of this Court on its Original Side was sent to the Backergunge Court for execution. While the proceedings were pending there, one of the judgment-debtors died, and an application was made to the Backergunge Court to execute the decree against the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor. Upon that, notice was issued u/s 248, calling upon the legal representatives to appear and shew cause why the decree should not be executed. They did appear, and the only objection they took was that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, as the application to execute the decree against them should, u/s 234 of the Procedure Code, have been made to the Court which passed the decree. This objection was overruled, and they then appealed to the District Judge, who held that the objection was good and allowed the appeal. Whatever the precise meaning and effect of Section 234 may be, it is quite clear that when the enforcement of a decree is applied for against the legal representative of a party to the suit, the Court executing the decree must, u/s 248, issue the notice prescribed in that section to such representative, and c

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