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

1931 Supreme(All) 8

BENNET
Ajodhya Chaudhari – Appellant
Versus
Ram Dayal Tewari – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Bennet, J. - This is a second appeal which has been brought by the judgment-debtors against the order of the lower appellate Court confirming an order of the execution Court of first instance disallowing the objection. A preliminary objection that no second appeal lay against the objection as it was made under Order 21, Rule 90, and it is no doubt correct that if the objection does come under Rule 90 that no second appeal would lie. A first appeal would lie under Order 43, Rule 1(j), and according to the provisions of Section 104, Civil P.C. According to Rule 104(2) no second appeal would lie from an order in appeal passed under that section. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that his objection was not an objection under Rule 90, but lay outside the provisions of that rule and came under the general provisions of Section 47 of the Code. It is regrettable that the judgment-debtor did not, while making his objections, state under what rule or section he made it. As far as I can sec from the grounds of objection which are urged here, the objection would come under Rule 90 and no second appeal would lie because the objection deals with an alleged defect in notice an

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