Skip to content


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

Mar 05 1919

Bidhu Sekhar Banerjee Vs. Kuloda Prasad Deogharia and Ors.

  • Decided on : 05-Mar-1919

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 50Ind.Cas.525

... learned Officiating Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 19th September 1917. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to set aside an order allowing a claim preferred under Order XXI, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff was a decree-holder who had obtained decree on the 21st November 1911. That decree was upheld on appeal, and, after that, execution proceedings were instituted and ... the defect would not be cured without the addition to the name of the defendant the fact that he was being sued on behalf of the idol. Order VII, Rule 9, Sub-rule (2), Civil Procedure Code, states that where the plaintiff sues or the defendant or any of the defendants is sued in a representative capacity, the plaint shall contain such statement as will ... any proceedings as between the plaintiff who was the decree holder and the defendant in his present capacity as judgment-debtor would be barred under the provisions of Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, and I think both from the allegations in the plaint and from all the circumstances that the plaintiff instituted those proceedings against the defendant as representing this Hindu deity. The ...

May 20 1912

Jugal Kishore Marwari and Anr. Vs. Bejoy Krishna Mukherjee and Ambika ...

  • Decided on : 20-May-1912

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.683

... Rule to set aside an order under Rule 93 of Order XXI of the Code of 1908. The petitioners in execution of a decree against their judgment-debtor, one Bejoy Krishna Mukherjee, attached his house and the adjoining lands. Thereupon, one Ambica Debi, the mother of the judgment-debtor and the opposite party in this Rule, preferred a claim under Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code ... position as if she had never made an application under Rule 58. We are of opinion that this position cannot be supported. No doubt, in relation to the question of limitation applicable to a suit of the description mentioned in Rule 63, it has been held that Article 11 of the second ... Rule 58 on the 10th December 1909. Her claim was dismissed on the 9th April 1910. It is true that there was no investigation on the merits but that was entirely by reason of her own default; she wilfully deprived herself of the opportunity open to her at that stage. Rule 63 ... he had been obstructed, and on the 13th January 1912, the mother of the judgment-debtor Put in an application under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code. The Court did not investigate whether the objector was bona fide in possession of the property; but made an order the ... it is not necessary for our present purpose to express any opinion upon this question. It is sufficient to hold that, on the face of Rule 63, the order of refusal is plainly final till a, regular suit has been instituted and successfully prosecuted. Consequently, the objector cannot now be allowed ...

Apr 05 2004

Smt. Sundari and Ors. Vs. Bhola Nath and Ors.

  • Decided on : 05-Apr-2004

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR2004All293

... under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the order of attachment was illegal. The objection of the plaintiff was rejected by the executing Court vide order dated 12-7-1969. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff Ganga filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the ... counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to look into the provisions of Order 21, Rule 58 and Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it exised before the amendment in 1976, which reads as under :'58(1) Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is, made to the attachment ... and upon the rejection of his objection, may file a suit for a declaration of his right. The object of Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to file a declaratory suit to establish the right which has been negatived by the claim order and in substance to set it ... that the plaintiffs right was protected under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act and Rule 241 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that since the plaintiff was a ... defendant that the ostensible owner is only a benamidar. The onus cannot rest on the plaintiff and infinitem and shifts according to the ordinary rules of evidence.' 14. However, in : AIR1945All42 , Amar nath v. Dwarka Das Jai Kishun Das, their Lordship held as follows :'The plaintiff discharges his ...

Feb 27 1923

Seth Goberdhan Das Vs. Makundi Lal and Anr.

  • Decided on : 27-Feb-1923

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1923All435; 74Ind.Cas.1024

... too late, as provided in Section 278 of the old Code. The, scope of Rule 63 of the present Code is not, however, so confined as to exclude orders passed under Rule 5 from its operation, and there is nothing in Rule 63 to prevent the finality attaching to orders passed under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the present Code of Civil Procedure.6. It is contended on behalf of the ... the appellant, that Article 11 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act of 1908 does not apply inasmuch as the objection taken by the Zemindar plaintiff under Order XXI, Rule 58 was not Investigated and, therefore, Order XXI, Rule 63 does not apply. It is further contended that the rule of one year's limitation applies only to those orders which are passed after ... XXI, Rule 63 as compared with Section 283 of the Code of 1882. Section 283 of the old Code expressly mentioned the orders passed under Sections 280, 281 and 282 of the Code, whereas the present Rule 63 makes no mention of Rules 60, 61 and 62. The words of Rule 63 read in their natural sense include all orders 'passed under the preceding Rules 58, Order 61 and 62. This rule ... Code expressly mentioned the orders passed under Sections 280, 281 and 282 of the Code, whereas the present Rule 63 makes no mention of Rules 60, 61 and 62. The words of Rule 63 read in their natural sense include all orders 'passed under the preceding Rules 58, Order 61 and 62. This rule is not confined to the orders passed under Rules 60, 61, and 62 only. The present Rule 63 ...

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

... 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 ... 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 executing ... manifest 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 ... Pay & 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 ... bill was attached by a creditor of the contractor. The Supreme Court held that the attachment by the creditor under section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not valid. The power of attorney coupled with the endorsement on the bill was a clear engagement by the contractor to pay the ...

May 03 1922

Abdul Kadir Sahib Vs. U.T.M. Somasundaram Chettiar

  • Decided on : 03-May-1922

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 70Ind.Cas.648

... to the imitation Act which is relied upon it Article 11.2. The effect of that Article is that, where an order is made under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on a claim preferred to, or objection made to the attachment of property in execution of a decree, the limitation is one year from the date ... as a refusal of the application on the ground that there had been laches of delay which brought the matter under, the proviso to Order XXI, Rule 58 which is in these terms:Provided that no such investigation shall be made where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily ... decision is given on the ground that the matter has been designedly or unnecessarily delayed, that is a decision and an order against the applicant under Rule 63 to which Article 11 applies. I think this is quite clear from the judgment of the learned Chief Justice and Seshagiri Aiyar, J. The latter ... in my judgment, there is no order on a claim preferred within the meaning of the Limitation Act and no order within the words of Order XXI, Rule 63 on a claim or objection preferred against the present plaintiff. Rightly or wrongly, in my view, the District Munsif simply said 'I will not hear you.' ... Chief Justice and Seshagiri Aiyar, J. The latter says:The language of Order XXI, Rule 63, leaves little room for doubt that all orders which negative the right set up by the claimant or the decree-holder are within the rule.4. Assuming that to be rightly decided, it does not affect this case, ...

Jul 18 1923

Arsamma Vs. Moidin Kunhi Beari and Anr.

  • Decided on : 18-Jul-1923

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1924)ILR47Mad160

... , Venkataratnam v. Ranganayakamma I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 985 where it was held that such an order was an order rejecting the claim, to which the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 63, will apply. The question is what is the effect of the added sentence 'The sale will not affect the rights, if any, of this petitioner.' Can it be said that ...

Aug 21 1919

Venkatachella Reddy Vs. Muthialu Reddy and Ors.

  • Decided on : 21-Aug-1919

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 54Ind.Cas.537

... Code of Civil Procedure do rot apply to his suit. The question, therefore, is whether under Order XX', Rule 63 the order made upon the 2nd defendant's petition in the proceedings in execution precludes him from raising this defence.3. The argument on behalf of the 2nd defendant appears to be that Rules 58 to 63 ... Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 'and in all other respects, as if he was a party to the suit,' that that and the following sections, which correspond to Rules 58 to 63, do not apply to parties to suits.7. No doubt if the claimant be a party these words do not apply, but they do not expressly exclude him from the operation of the rule ... upon the 2nd defendant applied by a petition under Order XXI, Rule 58, of the Code of Civil Procedure that the attachment of portion of the property might be ... procedure to be followed, regard must be had to the provisions of Older XXI, which deals with 'execution of decrees and ciders' and Rules 58 to 63 of that Order which are grouped under the sub-heading 'Investigation of claims and objections,' regulate applications made on the ground that any property attached in execution is not liable to such attachment. Section 60 of the Code ... Rule 58(1) may be taken as applying only to the case where the claimant or objector is not a party. We may also point out that the general arrangement of the present Code differs from the Code of 1882, in that the body of the Code deals with matters of substantive law and jurisdiction and the rules of procedure ...

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 ... 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 the application filed under O. 21, R, 58, C. P.C.11Mr. K. Duraiswami the learned counsel for 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 ...

Nov 14 1919

Venkatasawmy Naidu Vs. Gurusawmi Iyer

  • Decided on : 14-Nov-1919

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 56Ind.Cas.616

... This principle is implied in the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 73, under which persons who have applied for execution of their decrees are entitled merely to share the assets realised, and it is clear that, in the absence of fraud, (see Order XXI, Rule 90) such persons cannot object to the ... debtor, but he cannot now sell a merely speculative interest in these proceedings.5. It has been argued that the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 58 to 63, apply to this case, and the heading of the appellant's application referred to them; but we do not think that they apply, ... Rule 90) such persons cannot object to the sale of the property of their judgment-debtor by the Court.4. The ownership of the property passed to the appellant from the moment that the sale was knocked down to him, and the judgment debtor retained no interest in it which can be attached or sold (see Section 65, Civil Procedure Code ... is in custodia legis, and the effect of attachment is to render any private alienation void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment see Civil Procedure Code, Section 64, and Sankaralinga Reddi v. Kandasimi Tevan 30 M.L 413 : 17 M.L.J. 334 : 2 M.L.T. 365. The attachment ... of any of the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, had no locus standi to make this application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Cede, but Mr. Jayarama Aiyar withdrew this objection in the course of the arguments, and after the recent Full Bench decision in Veyindramuthu Pillai v. ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //