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

2009 Supreme(Del) 828

MOOL CHAND GARG
AMRIK SINGH LYALLPURI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Abinash K. Mishra, adv.
Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for state.

MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

1. The petitioner instituted Suit No. 124/1990 dated 02.04.1990 before the Court of Learned Civil Judge for recovery of Rs. 7392/- against the respondents. The said suit was decreed ex-parte by Civil Judge vide judgment/ decree dated 17.09.1991. Since no appeal was filed the decree attained finality and therefore the petitioner filed an execution petition bearing No.281/2002 for execution of the decree.

2. For the purpose of executing the decree, the petitioner is stated to have gone to the house of the judgment debtor as per the report dated 15.2.2005 submitted by the baliff which shows that the decree could not be executed because the judgment debtor was not in his house and the house was locked. It is a matter of record that even earlier orders were passed by the Civil Judge issuing warrants of attachment for the execution of the decree by breaking open the locks by Police aid but those orders were not complied with as the Police was not available. It was in these circumstances on the application of the petitioner fresh orders were passed for attachment on 28.01.2005 and the date of visit at the premises of the judgment debtor was fixed as 14.02.2005.

3. In r












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