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

1978 Supreme(Mad) 292

NAINAR SUNDARAM
Chidambaram Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Periyasamy Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates:
V.C. Viraraghavan, for Petitioner, S. Balathandapani, for Respondent.

Judgement

ORDER :- This revision arises out of execution proceedings. The petitioner herein is the decree-holder. The respondent herein is the judgment-debtor. The decree in question is dated 29-4-1961. Rarlier, E. P. 1050 of 1972 was filed for sale of the properties and on 31-3-1973, the Dist. Munsif, Dindigul, before whom the above proceedings were instituted passed orders and from the original order endorsed on the execution petition, though there is difficulty in deciphering it, I find that the order reads -

"No bidders at the sale on 28-3-1973. No steps. E. P. dismissed. The attachment to continue."

Both the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent concede that the above is the correct version of the order passed by the Court below on 31-3-1973. On 27-7-1973 the petitioner herein filed a petition under O. 21, R. 66 C.P.C. to bring the properties for sale. His application was contested by the judgment-debtor (respondent herein) on the ground that the present petition is barred by limitation since twelve years have lapsed from the date of the decree. This contention has been upheld by the court below and the petition has been dismissed. The present revision is directed against






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