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

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Prabhu Dayal Agarwal Kohinawal – Appellant
Versus
Hiranya Khound – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M Phukan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. K Baruahr-2, Advocate

ORDER

Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.—Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This application filed u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 07.02.2017, passed by the Munsiff No. 1 in Execution Case No. 01/2016 relating to T.S. No. 24/2003.

3. The petitioner filed a Title Suit against the respondent praying for recovery of vacant possession of the suit house after ejecting the respondent there from. The suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2003. The decree was prepared and signed by the judge on 11.04.2004.

4. Thereafter, on 02.01.2016, the petitioner filed an application for execution of decree. The Court below on 07.02.2017, rejected the execution application filed under Order 21 Rule 11 of the Cr.P.C. The reasons for rejection of the application was that the said petition was barred by the limitation imposed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

5. Here the only point of determinati

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