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

1993 Supreme(J&K) 25

R.P.SETHI
Ram Parshad – Appellant
Versus
Prem Nath – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: S.D. Sharma
Advocate For Respondent: V.R. Wazir

1. What is the period of limitation prescribed for filling an execution application? and (2) whether a decree passed by a court having no pecuniary jurisdiction, be held to be nullity which cannot be executed under Order XXI C.P C., are the two important questions required to be adjusted in this appeal which have arisen in the following circumstances :

The respondent-decree-holder obtained an exparte decree in arbitration proceedings after the award filed by the arbitrator was made a rule of the Court by the trial court of sub Judge, Udhampur, on 29-1-74. While passing the decree in terms of the award, it was held that the judgment debtor would be the owner of vehicle No. JKA/1815 and the plaintiff-decree holder entitled to the receipt of Rs. 5,000 in lump sum alongwith interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum with effect from 12.12,1969 till the whole amount was paid. While filing application for execution of the decree in the executing court, the respondent-decree-holder claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000 in terms of the decree and Rs. 3,100 on account of interest awarded, total being Rs. 8,100/-. It was contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor that as the decree was passed on 29.1




























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