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

1988 Supreme(All) 368

B.L.YADAV
HIRA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
HARINATH CHAURASIYA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.P.Tripathi

B. L. YADAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18th March, 1988 (Ann. 6), 14-04-88 (Ann. 8), 24-12-87 (Ann. 5) and 20-5-77 (Ann. 3), passed on the objections taken by the judgment-debtor, the petitioners, in execution proceedings in a suit filed by respondent No. 1 for specific performance of the contract which was decreed and the decree became final against the petitioners.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid decree was put in execution by respondent No. 1. The petitioners, judgment- debtors filed objections under S. 47 of the Civil P. C. (for short the Code) stating that the suit was barred by S. 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the Act), as the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 did not allege in his plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Hence the suit could not have been decreed and the decree itself was without jurisdiction and nullity, hence the execution application could not be allowed.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1, however, refuted the objections raised by the judgment-debtor and alleged that sufficient allegations required for a suit for specific performance of the contract, were made











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