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

1970 Supreme(Ori) 16

G.K.MISRA
Surendranath Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
Harihar Das – Respondent


Advocates:
B. K. Pal, B. Pal and A. Mohanty, for Petitioners; A. K. Das and D. S. Nanda, for Opposite Parties.

ORDER :- Opposite party No. 1 obtained an ex parte decree against the petitioners and their brother (opposite party No. 2) for Rs. 890/- in the Court of the 6th Munsif, Alipore, Calcutta, on 25-4-67. The decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the Munsif of Balasore. Execution Case No. 9 of 1968 was levied by the decree-holder in the Court of the Munsif, Balasore. The petitioners and opposite party No. 2 filed O. S. No. 121 of 1968 in the court of the Munsif, Balasore, to set aside the ex parte decree on various grounds including fraud, nonservice of notice etc. In the execution case the petitioners filed an application under Order 21, Rule 29 and Section 151, C.P.C. before the Munsif, Balasore, for staying that very execution case. The learned Munsif rejected the application and refused to grant stay, on 27-11-68. It is against this order the Civil Revision has been filed.

2. Mr. Pal for the petitioners urges that the learned Munsif exercised his jurisdiction illegally in refusing stay, which the petitioners were entitled to get not only under Order 21, Rule 29, but also under Section 151, C.P.C.

Order 21, Rule 29, runs thus :-

"Where a suit is pending in any Court, aga





























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