Back
RAJESH SHANKAR
Nuruddin @ Nruddin Ansari – Appellant
Versus
Manki Munda – Respondent
Key Points: - (!) The judgment states that the court executing the decree shall execute it as it stands and cannot modify or vary the term of the decree. [42000002410006] - (!) There was no specific decree for recovery of possession over the house constructed on plot no. 218, Khata no. 29, hence the proposed amendment in the execution petition could not be allowed. [42000002410006] - (!) The amendment sought was rejected by the Subordinate Judge, IX, Ranchi, and the High Court upheld that decision, dismissing the writ petition. [42000002410003][42000002410007] - (!) If there had been construction on the suit land, the party could have sought amendment during the suit, but that was not done, so the decree could not be altered in execution. [42000002410005] - (!) Citing Jai Narain Ram Lundia v. Kedarnath Khetan, the court reinforces that the decree must be executed as stands unless modified by the court that passed it. (!)
Rajesh Shankar, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing/setting aside the order dated 02.07.2007 (Annexure-5 to the writpetition), passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, IX, Ranchi in Execution Case No. 4/1999, whereby the learned court below rejected the amendment petition filed by the petitioners praying for amendment in the execution petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed Title Suit No. 223 of 1986-1996/70 for declaration of right, title and interest and delivery of possession in respect of three plots 396,218,551 of village Huzir of Khata No. 29 total area 2.69 acres against the defendants/respondents which was allowed vide judgment dated 28.08.98 and decree dated 8.9.1998 in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners. It is further submitted that the decree dated 8.9.1998 was put in execution vide Execution Case No. 4/99 on 04.02.99 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, IX, Ranchi. Thereafter the Executing Court issued writ of D.P. in respect of plot no. 396 area 0.95 acres, plot no. 551 area 1.59 acres and plot no. 218, area 0.15 acres to give delivery of possession to the petitioners/pla
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
