Back
K. SURENDER
M. Nageshwar Rao (died) – Appellant
Versus
M. A. Samad – Respondent
ORDER :
(K. Surender, J.) :
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the decree holder (petitioner herein) against orders dated 10.12.2015 in E.A.No.49 of 2015 in E.P.No.38 of 2013 whereby the learned trial Judge refused the prayer of the decree holder to issue account payee cheque for Rs.12,03,518/- out of the amount of Rs.14,93,980/- deposited as security in E.A.No.119 of 2014.
2. E.A.No.119 of 2014 was filed by the judgment debtor (respondent herein) to deposit the entire decretal amount before the trial Court towards security and to stall the proceedings till the appeal is disposed off in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 6(2) of CPC.
3. Briefly, the back ground of the case is that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-M.Nageshwar Rao for specific performance of agreement of sale directing the defendant in the suit to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property or in the alternative to return the advance amount of Rs.4,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum which works out to Rs.7,18,628/- vide O.S.No.1634 of 2006. The said suit for specific performance was dismissed, however, alternative r
The decree-holder is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited as security despite the pending appeal, as the appeal does not stay the cheque petition under Order 41 Rule 6(2) of CPC.
A decree holder can withdraw funds from a security deposit during pending appeal proceedings, as the deposit does not negate their withdrawal rights.
The court emphasized the limited grounds on which a decree is unexecutable and highlighted that the right of the Decree Holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decre....
The executing court cannot stay execution of its own decree; such authority lies with the appellate court.
A decree for specific performance remains executable if the decree-holder follows court permissions for deposit, despite prior non-compliance; timely objections by judgment debtors are essential to e....
A party seeking specific performance must have clean hands; failure to disclose subsequent agreements does not negate execution of prior decrees, provided timelines for compliance are met.
A payment or adjustment of a decree outside the Court must be recorded within thirty (30) days from the date of payment or adjustment. A payment or adjustment not recorded within the said period shal....
The appeal court affirmed that a surety can be treated as a principal debtor unless a specific agreement states otherwise, reinforcing conditions for deposit in appeal processes to protect creditors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of relief of specific performance and the application of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the context of ext....
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
