Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1989AP264
..... is in regard to some sort of an arrangement that was arrived at after the decree was passed. as there is no certification of adjustment as required under order xxi, rule 2, of the civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, the arrangement pleaded by the judgment-debtor cannot be established by leading 'evidence, as such evidence is clearly precluded by the express provisions of order xxi ..... on the point, it would be appropriate to notice the distinction between the present article 125 of the limitation act, and the corresponding article 174 in the 1908 act. article 174 of the limitation act, 1908, read as follows : -- description of suit :period of limitationtime from which period begins to run :art. 174 for the issue of a notice under the same ..... determined as between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder 'under section 47 of the code. the learned judge observed that such an application would come within the ambit of section 47, whether it is filed within the time prescribed by article 174 of the limitation act, 1908, or after the expiry of the said period. the learned judge observed that if ..... code, toshow cause why any payment made out of court of any money payable under adecree or any adjustment of the decree should not be certified.'ninety days.when .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1924)ILR51Cal548
..... confirmation of her possession of both the plots, and for an injunction. the question for determination is whether, having regard to the provisions of order xxi, rule 63, code of civil procedure, and article 11 of the first schedule to the indian limitation act of 1908, the appellant's suit, which was brought more than a year after her claim had been dismissed, is now maintainable ..... the order shall be conclusive. the respondent contends on appeal that, if a person elects to take advantage of the procedure laid down in order xxi, rules 58 to 63, of the code of civil procedure, he must be content to abide by the provisions of the rules which ho has invoked, and that, if an order is made rejecting his claim or objection, he must institute a ..... s decree was obtained in 1910 in suit no. 453 of 1909. on 4th november 1910 he attached the lands, and the plaintiff filed a claim under order xx, rule 58 of the code. her claim was dismissed for default on 7th january 1911. nevertheless, the defendant as decree-holder took no further steps to bring the property to sale, and the ..... were attached in execution of a decree which the respondent had obtained against the appellant's husband. the appellant thereupon preferred a claim to the property attached under order xxi, rule 58, code of civil procedure. the claim was dismissed for default on the 7th january 1911. immediately afterwards the execution proceedings instituted by the respondent were dismissed for default, and the attachment was released .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1979)81BOMLR79
..... claim having been rejected for default and without investigation the order of rejection was not an order as contemplated by order xxi, rule 63, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, and that article 11 of the limitation act, 1908, had no application. this argument was accepted and both the lower courts decreed the suit and defendant no. 1 filed ..... madhavi air mad. 41, it was held that even an order of dismissal for default of an objection under order xxi, rule 58 will fall within rule 63 of order xxi, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code.7. both the courts were, therefore, right in holding that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. in view of the fact ..... brought within the year allowed by article 11.the division bench thus took the view that where a claim is preferred under order xxi, rule 58 of the civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code and an order is passed either allowing or rejecting it, the party against whom the order is made irrespective of whether any investigation took ..... chowdhury v. fani bhusan das ilr(1918) cal. 785. in that case a claim preferred under order xxi, rule 58, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, was dismissed for default without any investigation and a suit under order xxi, rule 63, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, was instituted more than a year after the claim was rejected. the plaintiff's contention:' in that case was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1975Bom13; (1974)76BOMLR769; 1974MhLJ562
..... of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive.':the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the fact that the provisions of rule 13(2) are analogous to order 21, rule 63 of the code of civil procedure, rule 63 of the code of civil procedure, and thus according to him, the suit filed and thus according to him, the suit filed and thus according to him, the ..... muhammad yusuf v. province of madras. air 1943 mad 341 in which it was observed that a suit under order 21. rule 63, is a continuation of the claim proceedings under order 21, rule 63 is a continuation of the claim proceedings under order 21, rule 58 of the code of civil procedure and, therefore, a notice under section 80 is not necessary for a suit under order 21 ..... very much different from and wider than that of the investigation under order 21, rule 58, because a suit brought under order 21, rule 63, is concerned not only with the question of possession but also with the question of title. referring to the provisions of section 80 of the code of civil procedure, the supreme court pointed out that 'the material words used in section 80 ..... , rule 63. this decision was later followed in ram sundri v. collector, ludhiana, . two other decisions relied upon were hiraluxmi v. i.-t. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1923)ILR45All438
..... made 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 58 from its operation, and there is nothing in rule 63 to prevent 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 appellant that ..... 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, 60, 61 and 62. this rule is not confined to the orders passed under rules 60, 61 and 62 only. the present rule 63 runs as follows: 'where a claim or ..... 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 zamindar plaintiff under order xxt, 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 investigation ..... agree with the decision of the full bench referred to above and are of opinion that the present suit is barred by article 11 of the indian limitation act of 1908.8. we, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1292; 1993(3)ALT14(SC); JT1993(3)SC563; 1993(2)SCALE187; 1993Supp(3)SCC368
..... cpccpccpc (hereinafter referred to as the code). the court auction sale was not hit by section 52 of the act. the appellants were precluded from challenging the sale in view of dismissal of the proceedings under order 21 rule 58 of the code and the claim suit under order 21 rule 63 of the code preferred ..... sale certificate would not conclude the issue.2. the high court having held that the proceedings taken by jamnadas under order 21 rule 58 and order 21 rule 63 of the code would not operate as res judicata, should have further held that the failure of the party to raise objection would not ..... by jamnadas in civil suit no. 554 of 1964 would not, in any way, militate against that title. section 52 of the act will have no application to involuntary sales. though the finding of the lower court that the proceedings under order 21 rule 58 and rule 63 of the code would constitute res ..... civil suit no. 554 of 1964 ineffective. as rightly pointed out by the high court under order 21 rule 92(1) of the code there is a bar to question the title of the auction purchaser.11. it is correct to hold, as the high court has done, that the proceedings taken by jamnadas under order 21 rule 58 and rule 63 of the code ..... code. nothing prevented jamnadas from seeking to set aside the sale. in fact, two abortive steps were taken by him when he filed m.j.c. no. 192 of 1969 under order 21 rule 58 which came to be dismissed for default on 15.12.73 and special civil suit no. 74 of 1974 under order 21 rule 63 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 54Ind.Cas.537
..... property, alleged to belong to the undivided family of which the four defendants were members, and there 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 raised on the ground that it had been assigned to him upon a partition and was his separate property ..... punchanun bundopadhya v. rabia. bibi 17 c.p 711 upon the words of section 278 of the 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 ..... ) m.w.n. 662 : 9 m.l.t. 152 : 21 m.l.j. 928 and the provisions of section 47 of the 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, of that order do not apply to parties to suits, who are .....Tag this Judgment!
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!
Court : Mumbai
..... relates to the fatality of the defects of a deposition which was not signed and the written statement which was not filed within the time stipulated under order 8 rule 1 of the cpccpccpc holding it to be directory. the judgment would have no relevance to the requirement of the affidavit of the attesting witnesses or any other witnesses or the proof ..... because a fact has not been disputed by cross-examination of a party would not make it an admitted fact such as not requiring it to be proved under section 58 of the evidence act. there need be no cross-examination of unproved facts. 27. the evidence of the plaintiff herself shows in her re-examination that she went along with ..... judgment has been followed by the madras high court in the case of ramchandra marthandam vs. linga vijayan in para 28 of which it has been held that the procedure under section 63 of the indian succession act requiring the attestation before the testator is mandatory. consequently when there is no evidence that the attesting witnesses had seen the testator sign the ..... of the defendant on that score and hence it must be accepted as an admitted statement. admitted facts which are not to be proved under section 58 of the evidence act which runs thus are: 58. facts admitted need not be proved. ?? no fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR781
..... proceedings, and is also barred by limitation under article 181 of the first schedule of the indian limitation act.3. order xxi, rule 58, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, has no application, the appellant being the judgment-debtor. the application falls under section 47, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, and article 165 of the indian limitation act has no application as the appellant had not been dispossessed, but rather article 181 applies ..... -debtor appeals.2. it is argued for the appellant that the trial court appears to have had order xxi, rule 58, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, in its mind, whereas the appellant being the judgment-debtor and not a third party the application is governed by section 47, civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code. it is contended for the respondent that the application is barred as res judicata by reason of issue no ..... levied on defendants' lands not legal and proper?' the finding was that it was legal. it was undoubtedly open to the appellant to raise the objection under section 60 (c), civil procedure codecivil procedure codecivil procedure code, then, which he raises now. having raised the question of the legality and propriety of the attachment and failed to substantiate it under section 60 (c) or other grounds, we .....Tag this Judgment!