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

1989 Supreme(Del) 332

MAHESH CHANDRA
CHOKHA NAND MADAN – Appellant
Versus
ASIAN EXHIBITORS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Harish Malhotra, R.L.Lamba

MAHESH CHANDRA, J.

( 1 ) (ORAL)-THIS Civil Revision is directed against order dated 9th December, 1988 of Sub-Judge) 1st class whereby application of decree-holder-petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 41 Civil Procedure Code for directions to judgment-debtor to appear and disclose his assets has been dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me, I have come to the conclusion that this Civil Revision must succeed.

( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that petitioner- decree-holder had filed an application under Order 23 Rule 41 of Civil Procedure Code for directions to judgment debtor-respondent to disclose his assets and the said application was virtually dismissed summarily by the executing court with the observations that it is the duty of the decree-holder to find out the assets of judgment- debtor to get the decretal amount recovered. The responsibility cannot be shifted upon the judgment debtor . It appears that the learned trial court has not even cared to go through the provisions of Order 21 Rule 41 of the Civil Procedure Code. , which lays down as under:-

"41. Examination of judgment-debtor as to his



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