S.D.SINGH
MAHARAJA PATESHWARI PRASAD SINGH – Appellant
Versus
ADITYA PRASAD – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS is a decree-holders appeal arising out of proceedings for execution of decree No. 23 of 1933 under Order XXXIV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The final decree under the aforesaid rule was passed by the Civil Judge, Gonda on 27th February, 1943. Two of the defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1943, which was admitted on 10th July, 1943, and notice directed to be issued against the respondents. Later, however, it was reported that there was a deficiency of Rs. 668/8/- in court fee and the appellant was required to make up the same. On 14th November, 1944, the appellants Counsel made a statement in Court that it was not proposed to matte good the deficiency in court-fee and the appeal was accordingly dismissed "in default of prosecution". It may also be mentioned at this very place that while the appeal was pending, execution proceedings were stayed on 11th November, 1944 (1943? ). This interim order was modified on 24th April, 1944. While execution was allowed to proceed, it was directed that the sale of the property would not be confirmed till the decision of the appeal. This stay order was vacated on 17th November, 1944, when the appeal was di
Yeswant Deorao v. Walchand Ramchand
State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh
P.V. Ramachandra Rao v. P. Parasuramayya
K. Nagalinga Chettyv. O.K. Srinivasa Iyengar
Shiva Shankar Das v. Mufti Syed Yusuf Hasan
B.Chotey Lal v. Fazlul Rahman Khan
Chandri Abdul Majid v. Jawahir Lal
Kandaswami Pillai v. Kannappa Chetty
P.Satyanarayana v. B. Nagabushanam
Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. A.H. Forbes
Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., Allahabad
Krishna Prasad v.Gouri Kumari Devi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.