Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S.DIAS, J
A.V.MOHAMMED ALI – Appellant
Versus
MATHEW LAWRENCE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved in execution petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. key question of legality in execution order. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. trial court decree specifics laid out. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. claim amounts detailed in execution. (Para 7) |
| 5. trial court's stance on costs analyzed. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. modification of decree and implication on costs. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. claim for costs based on disputed decree. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. limits on cost claims clarified. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. court’s decision on execution findings. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved and displeased with Ext.P6 order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kochi (Trial Court) in E.P No.25/2018 in O.S. No.190/2010, the judgment debtor before the court below has filed the original petition. The respondent is the decree holder.
2. The antecedent facts leading to Ext.P6 order, in a narrow compass, are: the respondent had filed the suit against the petitioner for a decree of specific performance with an alternative relief for realisation of the advance sale consideration. The Trial Court decreed the suit by Ext.P1 judgment granting a decree of specific performance. The petitioner challenged the judgment and decree in RFA No.78/2014 b
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
