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

1963 Supreme(Mad) 360

S.RAMACHANDRA.IYER, P.RAMAKRISHNAN
Karuppiah Ambalam – Appellant
Versus
Ayya Nadar – Respondent


Advocates:
A. Sundaram Ayyar and P. Balasubramaniam, for Petitioner.
S. Ramasubramaniam, for Respondent.

Ramakrishnan, J.-

This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of law regarding the scope of section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code in its application to proceedings in execution.

A decree was passed in Original Suit No. 1 of 1962 by the Sub Court, Dindigul in the Madurai district. The execution proceedings were initiated in that Court, and since the property to be proceeded against was situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Sivaganga, in the Ramanathapuram district the decree was transferred to the Sub-Court, Sivaganga, following the procedure indicated in section 39, Civil Procedure Code, read with Order XXI. rules 5 and 8, Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter some allegations were made about the propriety of the execution being continued in the Sub-Court, Sivaganga because of the manner in which adjournments were being granted by the Subordinate Judge while dealing with the execution petition. The decree-holder filed a petition before the District Judge, Ramanathapuram under section 24, Civil Procedure Code for transfer and after hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge transferred the execution petition to the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai for furthe









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