Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home  Phrase:code of civil procedure 1908 rule 58 to 63  Page:14

Apr 17 1998

Smt. Minoti Mazumdar Vs. Tara Chand and another

  • Decided on : 17-Apr-1998

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1998(2)AWC1479

..... was sold in auction on 17.4.1965. the sale certificate was issued on 23rd august. 1965. the petitioner filed an application under order xxi, rule 58 claiming that she was in possession of the disputed house in pursuance of an agreement for sale executed by b. l. mitra on 3.8.1962 ..... correctly decided following the principles of law. thus, i do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 15th september. 1992 passed in civil revision no. 26 of 1984 impugned in this writ petition.11. the writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. no order as to ..... of delivery of possession. this application was dismissed by the learned executing court by order dated 28.11.1983. against the said order, a civil revision was filed which was allowed by an order dated 15th september. 1992 setting aside the order dated 28.11.1983. it is this order ..... the sale is confirmed even by removing the person occupying the same who refuses to vacate. such situation is apparent from the expression used in rule 95 which envisages that :'the court shall.......................order delivery to be made by puttingsuch purchaser..................in possession of the property and if need be, ..... the petitioner filed her objection under order xxi. rule 63 opposing the delivery of possession and took several objections. the application filed by respondent no. 1 for delivery of possession was dismissed by an order dated 28.11.1983. against which a revision being civil revision 26 of 1984 was moved. by order .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 24 1974

State Bank of India, Delhi Vs. V.K. Gupta and Anr.

  • Decided on : 24-May-1974

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 11(1975)DLT254; 1974RLR706

..... injustice in a nonappealable case. it has further been brought to my notice that the limitation for filing the suit under order 21 rule 63 of the code of civil procedure, by the bank has already expired and the bank has been left with no remedy to obtain justice which is due to it ..... from the ministry of works, housing and supply. this decree has reference to cr 131 of 1973. an objection petition under order 21 rule 58 of the code of civil procedure was also filed by the bank in this execution of decree in suit no. 193 of 1970, which was also dismissed by the ..... accounts officer was asked to remit the said amount in court. (8) on february 6, 1970, the bank filed objections under rule 58 of order 21 of the code of civil procedure in the three executions aforesaid contending inter alias that the bank was protected by an irrevocable power of attorney and the bills of respondent ..... a preliminary objection to the effect that the revision was not competent. they referred to order 21 rule 63, which enables the party against whom an order is made on his objections under order 21 rule 58, code of civil procedure, to institute a suit, to establish his right to the property in dispute. they emphasised the ..... words of rule 63 in particular, to the effect that subject to the result of such suit if any .....

Tag this Judgment!
Mar 15 1973

Kanbi Ramji Hirji Vs. Kanbi Ramji Gopal and Ors.

  • Decided on : 15-Mar-1973

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1974Guj153; (1974)0GLR243

..... of the trial court as the suit verandah. the defendant no. 1 resisted the attachment. he applied for setting aside attachment. his objections were heard under order 21, rule 58 of the code of civil procedure by the executing court. on 16th january, 1967 the executing court allowed his application and set aside the attachment because on 15th june 1959 the defendant no. 2 had ..... to the party against whom an order has been passed in a claim' proceeding under order 21, rule 58 and that a suit under order 21, rule 63 has. got to be filed within the period of one -year prescribed by article 11 of the indian limitation act, 1908 to which article 98 of the limitation act, 1963 corresponds. he has further held that there ..... is nothing in section 53 of the transfer of property act which takes away the right conferred upon an aggrieved party by order 21, rule 63. he has unhesitatingly held that section 53 cannot be interpreted ..... so as to take away the right to file a suit given to a creditor under order 21, rule 63 of the code of civil procedure. in his opinion, if the intention of the legislature was that a creditor who can avail himself of the remedy under section 53 of the transfer of property act should .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jun 22 1966

P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar and Anr. vs. C.T. Senthilnathan and Ors.

  • Decided on : 22-Jun-1966

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1967Mad253

..... judgment given by a division bench, in appeal from a judgment of a single judge, which itself allowed or dismissed a claim under order xxi rule 58, c.p.c. read with rule 63 c.p.c. it is sufficient for us to note that, in this appeal, it is always open to us to dismiss the appeal ..... 6 of 1952-53 of the district court, shimoga, there was an application (no. 1918 of 1962) before srinivasan j. on the original side under order xxi rule 58, c.p.c. for raising the attachment of certain properties, which was effected in execution of the decree. this application was preferred by one c. t. senthilnathan, ..... to reopen the question, when earlier decisions appeared to have sustained the point of view that such appeals could be maintained, notwithstanding the explicit terms of order xxi rule 63 c.p.c. there the matter was permitted to rest, as far this catena of decisions was concerned.(5) but subsequently, the same principle came up ..... maintainable. but he was content to press the argument in that form that, in any event, order xxi rule 63 c.p.c. could not be negated in this fashion, by the decree-holder. that rule specifically lays it down that if the claim or objection is allowed, the party against whom such an order is ..... that order; one argument advanced was that such a confirming judgment was without jurisdiction, in view of the explicit language of order xxi rule 63 c.p.c. the learned judges were exercised to come to a conclusion whether the general principle was that enunciated in order xxi .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jul 17 1981

Ulaganathan Chettiar vs. Durairajan and Ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Jul-1981

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1982Mad424; (1982)2MLJ74

..... negligence of his guardian or next friend that right has been again and again recognised by this court. that right cannot certainly be taken away by the application of the rule of res judicata."a division bench of the andhra pradesh high court consisting of viswanatha sastri and krishna rao jj in question. it was held that gross negligence on the ..... counsel for the appellant contended that the only manner in which the order in the claim petition could be got rid of is by taking proceedings under o. 21. r. 63 c.p.c. and that so long as the plaintiffs have failed to do so, they could not independently put forward the claim. this ignores the aspect discussed above, viz ..... the application filed under o. 21, r, 58, c. p.c.11mr. k. duraiswami the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that there was no adverse interest between the first plaintiff and his step-mother that the step ..... the second appeal the following question of law was framed:-"whether in view of the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to institute a suit under o. 21, r. 63. c. p. c. within one year from the date of ex. b 13, the present suit is maintainable, especially when the plaintiffs were minors represented by their step-mother in .....

Tag this Judgment!
Aug 24 1916

Ponnurangam Pillai and Ors. Vs. Lal Khan Sahib And Anr.

  • Decided on : 24-Aug-1916

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 37Ind.Cas.348

..... 's claim petition and was passed in the first suit, that order is final, subject to the result of any suit brought by b under order xxi, rule 63, of the civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, within one year of that order. it is that remedy by suit which b ought to have pursued, and he had no right of appeal or revision ..... provided against an order of this description in order xliii of the code of civil procedure, the suggestion is only that the order is one passed under section 47 of the civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, because petitioners are representatives of the judgment-debtor. this is supported by reference to rule 179 of the madras civil rules of practice, which no doubt has the force of law and ..... made that a refusal by the lower court to exercise jurisdiction under section 115 (b), not a material irregularity or an illegality under section 115 (c) of the civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, is in question. but the lower court's order is based on a consideration of the merits of the case and was an exercise, though possibly a wrong one ..... was dismissed as premature.6. i think that c's objection to b's application in the second suit under rule 179 of the madras civil rules of practice was in substance a petition under order xxi, rule 58, of the civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, advancing a claim to the moneys attached by b and that such a petition must be treated as made in .....

Tag this Judgment!
Mar 06 1935

Rengammal Vs. Varadappa Naidu and Anr.

  • Decided on : 06-Mar-1935

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 158Ind.Cas.175

..... the property in question. the judgment-debtor's wife intervened with a claim, which under order xxi, rule 58, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, was allowed. the contention now put forward on her behalf is, that the order made on the claim petition having become conclusive under order xxi, rule 63, as between her and the creditor, ha is precluded from re-agitating the same matter in insolvency. this ..... contention is clearly untenable. under article 11 of the limitation act, the suit prescribed by rule 63, should be brought within one year from the date of the summary order. the argument is, that such a suit not having been brought, the order made on the claim ..... petition has become conclusive as between the claimant and the attaching decree-holder. but in bringing the suit under rule 63, the attaching creditor acts on his own behalf and by the decision in that suit only the parties to it are bound: donepudi subramaniam v. nune narasimham 56 m.l ..... , though made by the same creditor, was made by him in a different capacity and the objection, therefore, cannot prevail.2. the lower court's order is right and the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.

Tag this Judgment!
Apr 02 1924

Sreenivasa Chariar Vs. Appavoo Reddy and Ors.

  • Decided on : 02-Apr-1924

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 84Ind.Cas.265

..... incompetent application altogether. the appeal is against that order. the subordinate judge rightly remarks that the application -cannot be treated as an application under order xxi, rule 58, c.p.c, for that rule is applicable only when the objection taken is that the property attached is not liable to attachment. in this case, at the time the subordinate judge attached ..... so we must hold in this case that the sale by the munsif passed title to the appellant.2. then the question is whether the appellant can adopt any procedure under the c.p.c. to bring to the notice of the subordinate judge the fact that the title to the property had already passed to him and stop ..... the sale of it in execution of the subordinate judge's decree. the subordinate judge says that there is no such provision in the code; but we think the matter is one which can be brought within the terms of section 47 of the civ.p.c. the purchaser is certainly a representative of ..... . here we have a case where two courts have attached the same property in execution of money-decrees in each court. this is a case which falls under section 63 of the c.p.c. ordinarily under clause (i) the court which should have realised or received such property and determined any claim thereto or any objection to the ..... made above. the respondent will pay the costs of this appeal to the appellant. the costs in the lower court will be disposed of by that court. the civil revision petition is dismissed but without costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!
Aug 01 1935

Bama Pada Bandopadhyay and Anr. Vs. Rama Nath Mandal (Ronamath Mandal ...

  • Decided on : 01-Aug-1935

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 165Ind.Cas.84

..... the properly was sold by the executing court. it further appears that there was an application for setting aside the sale under order xxi, rule 90, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code. the said application was dismissed on september 7, 1925. there was an appeal by the pro forma defendants against the order refusing to set ..... reason of the fact that the attachment which is the foundation of the claim petition and therefore of the order made therein is gone. rule 58 pre-supposes an attachment and the ground of the application for claim is that the property is not liable to such attachment. the conclusiveness ..... conception.4. the order which is intended by rule 63 to be conclusive is the order contemplated by rules 60, 61 and 62 passed on a petition made under rule 58. the scope of an enquiry in such a claim or in the subsequent suit under rule 63 is, therefore, confined to the question of ..... of the execution proceedings and the attachment issuing there from. again the object of prescribing a shorter period of limitation for a suit under rule 63 is to have speedy determination of disputes relating to title of the properties attached in execution, so that the title to the properties to ..... title to the property in question? it is laid down in order xxi, rule 63, that the successful party in the claim case may institute a suit to establish the right claimed in the claim proceedings under rule 58 and subject to the result of such suit the order of the executing court .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 23 1948

Chet Singh Vs. Anjuman Imdad Bahmi Qarza

  • Decided on : 23-Nov-1948

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1949P& H318

..... , 282 and 283, civil p.c., 1877, corresponded to rules 60, 61, 62 and 63 of the present code. section 283 of the old code expressly mentioned the orders passed under sections 280, 281 and 282 of the code, whereas section 63 makes no mention of rules 60, 61 and 62. the words of rule 63 read in theirs natural sense include all orders passed under the preceding rules 58, 60, 61 ..... which johnstone, j. concurred held that if a person chooses to take advantage of a summary procedure, he must suffer its disadvantage as well as enjoy its benefits. it was further held that where a mortgagee without possession chooses to prefer an objection under order 21, rule 58, on the strength of his alleged mortgage, and an adverse order is passed against him ..... also does not help the plaintiff in the present case.15. as stated above, the provisions of order 21, rule 63 are more comprehensive than the provisions of section 283 of the old code and the change in the language of article 11, limitation act, 1908, shows that article 11, limitation act, is not restricted to those cases only in which an investigation has ..... substance and in effect it negatives the claimant's claim and refused to recognise it. obviously, the order fell under article 11, limitation act, 1908, and the objector not having instituted a suit under order 21, rule 63, civil p.c., to establish the right which he claimed to the property in dispute in the objection petition, the order dated 11th february 1936 became .....

Tag this Judgment!
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //