Back
B. R. GAVAI, DIPANKAR DATTA, ARAVIND KUMAR
Asma Lateef – Appellant
Versus
Shabbir Ahmad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
The Challenge
1. Respondents 1 to 3 had filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”, hereafter) in an execution application filed before the Executing Court by the appellants. It was urged, based on the case pleaded therein, that the decree put to execution was inexecutable. The Executing Court, on 19th March, 2008, allowed the objections of the respondents 1 to 3, resulting in dismissal of the execution application.
2. A revision was carried by the appellants from the order dated 19th March, 2008 before the Revisional Court which, vide its order dated 21st February, 2009, dismissed the objection filed by the respondents 1 to 3 and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the decree whilst treating such objection as non-maintainable.
3. The revisional order dated 21st February, 2009 was challenged by the respondents 1 to 3 in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution1[Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15236 of 2009] before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (“High Court”, hereafter). The High Court, by its judgment and order dated 4th February, 2011, quashed the order passed by the Revis
No cases in the provided list are explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, or definitively treated as bad law based solely on the language given. The list does not contain phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or similar language indicating that any case has been explicitly overruled or invalidated in subsequent rulings. Therefore, there are no clear instances of bad law identified from the provided data.
1. Followed / Affirmed / Established Principles:
Pawan Chaudhry VS Nimesh Jain - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 794: Emphasizes that a judgment cannot be granted solely based on absence of written statement and that plaintiffs must prove claims with evidence. This reflects a well-established procedural principle.
S Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd VS Aroush Motors - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1789: Highlights the importance of cross-examination rights even when written statements are not filed, reaffirming procedural safeguards.
Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. VS Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. - 2010 4 Supreme 519: Discusses the nullity of orders passed with knowledge of interim orders and the jurisdiction of revisional authority, reinforcing procedural legality.
Rafique Bibi (D) By Lrs. VS Sayed Waliuddin (D) By Lrs. - 2003 6 Supreme 300: States that a decree with illegality or irregularity of procedure cannot be deemed inexecutable, affirming procedural integrity.
Balvant N. Viswamitra VS Yadav Sadshiv Mule (D) Through Lrs. - 2004 6 Supreme 194: Clarifies that not all irregular or wrong decrees are null and void, aligning with established principles of legal procedure.
Balraj Taneja VS Sunil Madan - 1999 8 Supreme 27: Addresses the discretion of courts under Order 8, Rule 10 of CPC, consistent with procedural standards.
HUKAM CHAND VS OM CHAND - 2001 0 Supreme(SC) 1600: Establishes the jurisdiction of civil courts under specific statutes, reaffirming statutory jurisdiction.
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh VS Jai Prakash University - 2001 5 Supreme 278: Clarifies the process for impleading successors-in-interest and the effect on decrees, consistent with procedural law.
2. Clarifications / Standards / Procedural Guidelines:
SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI v/s SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 35912: Affirms that the burden of proof remains with the claimant regardless of the opposing party's failure to contest.
Dineshbhai Ranchhodbhai Kapdi vs Harisinh Dunkhaji Zala - 2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 214 and DINESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI KAPDI V/s HARISINH DUNKHAJI ZALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 2386: Both cases justify recounting orders based on procedural lapses by the Election Officer, establishing standards for election-related procedures.
SRI. N. GANGESH S/O LATE SRI. K. NANJUNDAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS vs SMT. CHINNAMMA D/O LATE SRI. NAJNJUNDAPPA, W/O THAYAPPA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33646: Clarifies standards courts must consider when granting injunctive relief.
J.Muthurajan vs S.Vaikundarajan - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4281: Emphasizes adherence to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the requirement for factual substantiation in fraud allegations.
Shiva Jyothi, D/o Late Thammaiah vs Jayalakshmamma - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22634: Establishes the legal effect of automatic attornment under Karnataka Rent Act, affirming legal principles of landlord-tenant relationships.
3. Caution / Limitation / Dismissal Principles:
Jayarama, S/o. Doddathammanna VS Munirathnamma W/o. Late Hanumantharaya Setty - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 519: Notes that claims barred by limitation are unsustainable, aligning with general principles of limitation law.
Somasundaran vs Nataraj - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2585: Dismissal of delay in setting aside ex parte decree for lack of sufficient cause reflects procedural diligence.
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh VS Jai Prakash University - 2001 5 Supreme 278: Addresses the non-nullity of decrees against successors-in-interest if the proper procedure is followed, emphasizing procedural correctness.
None of the cases explicitly indicate being overruled or reversed; however, the absence of treatment indicators means treatment status is based solely on the language provided. Without explicit references to subsequent judicial treatment, the treatment of these cases remains uncertain.
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
