Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
E. Kanniappan – Appellant
Versus
N. Chandrasekaran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interpretation of section 14 of limitation act (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on applicability of limitation provisions (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. counterarguments on limitation provisions (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. judicial reasoning and examination of proceedings (Para 15 , 17) |
| 5. applicability of section 14 vs section 136 of limitation act (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 6. legislative intervention affecting enforcement of decrees (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. final ruling on execution of the decree (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
ORDER :
1. This revision has thrown up some interesting questions of law. The interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is called in question in the present revision petition, as one amongst other legal issues.
2. I have heard Mr. N.R. Anantha Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. M.V. Seshachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom originally a suit was filed before the Civil Court for recovery of possession. The suit came to be decreed in favour of the respondents/landlords. However, before the decree could be executed, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Execution of decrees cannot be barred by limitation when the Rent Control Act no longer applies after its repeal.
R.12(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Rules mandates that a court has discretion to stay execution proceedings only if certain conditions are met.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act would not be available if the earlier suit was dismissed after adjudication on its merits a....
High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jur....
The executing court must adhere to the decree unless it is set aside, and objections based on unrelated civil suits cannot impede execution.
Period of limitation – Object to advance cause of justice must be kept in mind while considering bar of limitation.
Subsequent purchasers possess the legal right to execute possession decrees under CPC without needing an assignment of the decree.
(1) Decree passed by civil court is valid and executable which is not interdicted by applicability of the Act to area in question.(2) Rights of parties have to be determined on the date of filing of ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
