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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 4634

M.VENUGOPAL
Sampath – Appellant
Versus
Krishnamoorthy – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. V. Raghavachari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M/s. M.V. Muralidharan, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order in E.A.No. --/2004 in O.E.P.No.78 of 2004 in Arni Sub Court O.S.No.98 of 2002 dated 20.12.2004 passed by the Learned District Munsif Polur, Tituvannamalai, in rejecting the stay application filed by the revision petition under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code pending disposal of Section 5 application of Limitation Act and the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. The Learned District Munsif while passing orders in E.A.No.--of 2004 in O.E.P.No.78 of 2004 dated 20.12.2004 has inter alia held that the suit has been decreed by the Sub-Court Arni and this Court is not only a transferee Court and therefore has no power to stay the execution proceedings and at the most the transferee court can stay the execution only for a reasonable time under Order 21, Rule 26 to enable the judgment debtor to apply to the transferor Court to grant the orders to stay the execution in the transferee Court. But it is not so in this case. What cannot be done under a specific provision cannot also be done under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and resul








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