SRINIVASAN
Udayakumar – Appellant
Versus
Muruganandham and Another – Respondent
Heard both sides. The order of the learned Judge is unsustainable. The petitioner has filed execution petition in H.P.R. No. 80 of 1995 for executing the decree passed in O.S. No. 206 of 1990. He has stated in that petition that he got assignment of the decree from the plaintiff decree holder on 28-10-94 for proper consideration. There is a prayer in the said petition under Order 21, Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure, for recognising him as assignee decree holder. He has also prayed for further reliefs in the execution petition. Notice was ordered in the said petition by the executing Court returnable by 2-4-1995. On 3-4-1995 the matter was taken up. The Court recorded that service had been effected and it was sufficient. The respondent in the execution petition viz., the original decree holder and the judgment-debtor remained absent. They were set ex parte. The matter directed to be called on 7-4-1995. The executing Court ought to have ordered on that day itself the prayer recognising the petitioner herein as the assignee decree holder. But, without doing so, the executing Court adjourned the matter. It was thereafter adjourned from time to time.
2. E.A. No. 88 of 1995 i
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.