Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
S.Baskaran – Appellant
Versus
R.Panneerselvam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to decree execution on technical grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments from both sides regarding procedural adherence. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's insistence on procedural fairness and precedent. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. order to set aside previous decisions for compliance. (Para 8) |
ORDER
The defendant in a suit for specific performance is the revision petitioner, challenging the dismissal of his application in EA.No. 5 of 2022 filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (in short 'CPC'), seeking to declare that the decree was inexecutable and the proceedings were null and void.
2. I have heard Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Ms.P.C.Geethammal, learned counsel for the contesting first respondent .
3.Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that though the petitioner suffered a decree in the suit for specific performance and EP.No.160 of 2017 had been filed, the petitioner questioned the non-service of the draft sale deed on the petitioner as being fatal to the Execution Proceedings by invoking Section 47, apart from other grounds that no guardian was appointed for the minor/third respondent a
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
