Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Kusum Kamini Debi - Appellant
Versus
Sailesh Chandra Chakravarty & Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 21-06-1934
Section 39, Civil P.C - Execution of Decree - The court held that the decree-holder cannot split up the decree into several parts and execute them piece-meal in different courts or in the same court. This interpretation was supported by relevant case law and influenced the court's decision to dismiss the application for execution.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant obtained a decree for a specific amount against the judgment-debtors. The decree was split up into two parts, and a certificate for the execution of one part was sent to another court. The judgment-debtors objected, stating that the execution case was not maintainable as the decree-holder had no right to split up the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the execution case was not maintainable as the decree-holder cannot split up the decree into several parts for execution in different courts. The application for execution was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the decree-holder had the right to split up the decree for execution in different courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 39, Civil P.C, and held that it contemplates the entire decree, not a part of it, to be sent for execution to another court. The court's decision was influenced by relevant case law supporting this interpretation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the executing court was to inform the court which passed the decree that it failed to execute it due to the irregular certificate sent for execution.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in an execution case. It appears that the appellant obtained a decree for Rs. 6,399-9-6 and costs Rupees 4-1-3 against the judgment-debtors. It further appears that on the application of the decree-holder the decree was split up into two parts and a certificate for the execution of one part of the decree, namely Rs. 1,500, was sent to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Dinajpur. The objection of the judgment-debtors was that the execution case was not maintainable inasmuch as the decree-holder had no right to split up the decree in this way. This objection of the judgment-debtors has been given effect to by the learned Subordinate Judge and the execution case has been dismissed. Hence the present appeal by the decree-holder.
2. Section 39, Civil P.C, lays down that the Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder send it for execution to another Court. Evidently the section contemplates that the entire decree and not a part of it is to be sent for execution to other Court or Courts. There is no provision in the CPC under which a decree-holder who has obtained a decree can divide a decree into several parts and execute them piece-meal in different Courts or in the same Court. This view is supported by the decisions in Forester v. Baker (1910) 2 KB 636 and in Prakash Chandra v. Ramnarain 1917 Pat 70. We are therefore of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in dismissing the application for execution. The effect of this order is that the executing Court is to inform the Court which passed the decree that it has failed to execute it inasmuch as the certificate which was sent to it was irregular. The result therefore is that this appeal is dismissed with costs hearing fee being assessed at two gold mohurs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
