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

2014 Supreme(MP) 264

U.C.MAHESHWARI
Jamuna Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Balkishan – Respondent


Advocates:
Avinash Zargar for petitioner; Shobhitaditya for respondent No.1.

ORDER

1. The petitioner-objector has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2013 passed by the IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal in Execution Case No.55-A/2012 whereby his application filed under section 151 CPC, to adduce the evidence through witnesses in support of his application under Order 21 rule 97 CPC pending in the aforesaid execution proceeding to resist the execution of decree, by holding that recording of such evidence is not necessary, has been dismissed.

2. Petitioner’s counsel after taking me through the petition and papers placed on record along with impugned order argued that as per procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, on filing the objection by a third party having independent right of possession over the property in dispute to resist the execution of decree under execution passed between the decree-holder and the judgment debtor, the Court is bound to decide such objection after extending the opportunity to adduce the evidence to the parties in support of their contention and in such premise, the executing Court did not have the authority to d













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