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

1995 Supreme(Kar) 174

M.B.VISHWANATH
V. K. CHOODANATHA SETTY – Appellant
Versus
P. GOPALACHETTY – Respondent


Advocates:
Chandana Prasad

M. B. VISHWANATH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners are applicants who filed application under order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. Their application was rejected by the trial Court by its order dated 20-1-1995.

( 2 ) IN O. S. No. 1881 of 1980 a preliminary decree was passed and final decree proceedings were pending. It was at that stage the applicants filed the application under Order 1, Rule 10, c. P. C. , to get themselves impleaded as judgment-debtors in the execution petition.

( 3 ) IT should be clearly borne in mind that the two revision petitioners were not parties to the suit.

( 4 ) AT the outset it should be mentioned that Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. does not apply to execution proceedings. If the revision petitioners-applicants have purchased the property involved in the sale proceedings, other remedies are open to them. But they cannot come on record as judgment-debtors when they are not parties to the original suit. Hence the revision petition is rejected.

--- *** ---

.

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