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

1958 Supreme(MP) 169

T.C.SHRIVASTAVA
SHASHIKANTABAI RATANLAL PORWAL – Appellant
Versus
RAJKISHAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Amarnath Segal, S.L.Dubey

T. C. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition for revision has been filed by the decree-holder whose application for execution of a decree against the non-applicants has been held barred by time.

( 2 ) ON 27-10-1951 the decree in question was passed in favour of the applicant against the non-applicants for Rs. 500/- payable in five instalments of Rs. 100/each. The first instalment fell due on 1-2-1952 and the subsequent instalments fell due every three months thereafter. It was ordered in the decree that after any instalment had been defaulted and a month had passed after the default, the whole amount would become payable. ,d eq'r erkyck okftcqy cnk gks The judgment-debtors paid nothing and the decree-holder filed the present execution on 14-5-1955. She has claimed recovery of the last four instalments with interest stating that the first instalment which fell due on 1-2-1952 had become time-barred.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the judgment-debtors it was stated that as the first instalment was defaulted, the whole amount became due on 1-3-1952 and as the -decree-holder did not file the execution petition with-in three years from that date, the present petition was barred by time. This contentio
















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