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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
Govindarasu – Appellant
Versus
Pandiyan – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Prabakaran

Table of Content
1. delay in execution proceedings due to counter affidavit filing. (Para 2 , 3)
2. reference to directives for expediting execution petitions. (Para 4)
3. mandatory resolution of execution petition by stipulated date. (Para 5)

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

2. This revision petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings filed pursuant to the decree passed in the suit.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the delay in filing the Counter by the Respondent has kept the Execution Petition pending for over one year without effective progress, defeating the object of execution proceedings and the Petitioner, being the Decree Holder, is deprived of the fruits of the decree, causing serious prejudice and hardship. He would further state that the Respondent/Judgment Debtor has adopted dilatory tactics by seeking adjournments, remaining absent, and failing to comply with Court orders. He would further state that there is no order of stay granted by any appellate Court restraining execution of the decree. Hence, prays for expeditious disposal of the Execution P

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