Skip to content


Search Results Judgments > Act:CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Rule 58 to 63 - Page:14

Apr 25 1927

Debi Das Vs. Maharaj Rup Chand

  • Decided on : 25-Apr-1927

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1927All593

... favour. The question has to be decided by interpreting Rr. 58 to 63 inclusive, in Order 21. Under the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, it had to be decided by interpreting Sections 278 to 283, inclusive, of that Code (hereinafter called old sections).8. Rules 62 and 63, of Order 21 which, in my opinion, for all ... simple mortgage in favour of the petitioner and sold subject to such mortgage is a petition falling within the provisions of C. 21, Rule 58, of the Civil Procedure Code. If it is dismissed after investigation or otherwise, the mortgagee is barred from suing after one year from the date of the order. ... this appeal that a decision by a Court, that property is not subject to a mortgage, is to be deemed, under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code, conclusive against a person who has asked the Court either not to sell certain property attached in execution of a decree against another ... contemplated by C. 21, Rule 62, must be brought within twelve months of the date of the order when it is brought by a person against whom any of the following orders has been made and the orders referred to include orders under the Code of Civil Procedure on a claim preferred ... given under the Code of 1882. That Code did not prefix Section 278(equivalent to Rule 58) with any special heading as the present Code does. Moreover, it did not terminate this block of sections dealing with claims and objections by insertion of a fresh heading after Section 283(equivalent to Rule 63). The consequence is ...

Oct 05 1934

Lachhoo Vs. Firm Munni Lal-Babu Lal

  • Decided on : 05-Oct-1934

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 153Ind.Cas.577

... he averred that the objections were really under Section M of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Munsif, however, treated them under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, and disallowed the objections of Lachhmi Narain.4. Lachhmi Narain then brought the present suit under Order XXI, Rule 63, of the Civil Procedure Code, and this suit in spite of the objections of the ... Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Munsif in whose Court the objections were filed, allowed the amendment but when the decree holder appeared to reply to the objections, he averred that the objections were really under Section M of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Munsif, however, treated them under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, and ... headed his objections under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code; the decree-holder all along protested that the objections were under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, and it was Lachhmi Narain who got his objections amended, may be that the learned Munsif also thought that the objections were under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, but this does not in any ... 47 and not under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, which deals only with questions arising between the decree-holder and strangers to the decree, Lachhmi Narain himself had originally headed his objections under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code; the decree-holder all along protested that the objections were under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, and it was Lachhmi Narain ...

Jul 17 1958

Smt. Laltabai Gopalrao Naik Vs. Krishnarao Naik and Ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Jul-1958

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959MP100

... 2, Krishnarao and Khanderao. She and respondent 1 preferred an objection under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the attachment of their 2/3rd share in the two houses. The objection having been dismissed, the appellant filed the present suit under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code for declaration that she has 1/3rd share in the houses, which is not liable ... is plaintiff Smt. Laltabai's appeal from the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Balaghat, dismissing her suit (No. 30A of 1952) for declaration under Order 21 Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code. 2. Respondents 3 and 4, Samrathmal and Ratanchand, obtained a decree for Rupees 16079/- against respondent 2 Khanderao in civil suit No. 13-B of 1949 of the Court of Additional District Judge ... a son, if a partition takes place between the sons. It cannot be disputed, as laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Pratapmull Agarwalla v. Dhanabati, ILR 63 Cal 691: (AIR 1936 PC 20), that until, actual distribution of the family property is made, she has no right to a share. Therefore, if there is no actual division ...

Jan 21 1974

Sitaram and Ors. Vs. Maharaja Govindsinghjoo Deo and Anr.

  • Decided on : 21-Jan-1974

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1974MP173; 1974MPLJ368

... the said Baldeo Prasad. Certain properties were attached in execution of the decree. The plaintiffs herein preferred objection under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure. The objection was dismissed by the executing Court. The plaintiffs then brought the suit under Order 21, Rule 63, from which this appeal arises. 3. The suit was initially for declaration of title simpliciter. The plaintiffs amended their plaint in ... was explicit; now, after the amendment as allowed by this Court, it is still there, though implicit. 20. Shri Dharmadhikari relied on the following decisions: Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra, (1908) 35 Ind App 22 (PC); Sonaram v. Sitaram, AIR 1941 Cal 28; Sheo Prashad v. Suraj Mal. AIR 1955 Punj 104; Arumugha v. Venkatachala, AIR 1933 Mad 439 and Thiruvengadaswami ... Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C., is conclusive, but the conclusiveness of such decision is lost as soon as a civil suit is instituted to establish the right, which the plaintiff claims to the property in dispute within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 63, in which case finality is bestowed upon the result of such suit. (2) A suit under Order 21, Rule 63, has ... made in a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, C.P.C., and the fixed court-fee is adequate. 11. A suit under Order 21, Rule 63, C.P.C., has its own peculiarity. A suit contemplated under this rule may be merely to avoid collusiveness of the order passed on a claim or objection preferred under Order 21, Rule 58. If no suit is instituted, the ...

Jul 15 1964

Mt. Kanchanbai and Anr. Vs. Motichand and Ors.

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-1964

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1967MP145

... 1920 Nag 80 (2) ), Henry Drake-Brockman J. C. held that where the claim of a transferee of attached property preferred under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Civil-Procedure Code, is dismissed and the transferee brings a suit under Order 21 Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code for a declaration of his right to the property, it is open to the attaching creditor to plead as a defence to ... against the decree, dated, 1-9-1961, pass-ed by Shri S. J. Surana, District Judge, Dhar, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 97 of 1960, reversing the decree, dated 30-6-1961, ' passed by Shri R.L. Chandani, Civil Judge, Class H, Badnawar, in Civil Suit No. 17 of 1959.2. The respondents filed a suit for setting aside a gift, dated, 3 ... reversed that finding and held that the transfer was with intent to delay and defeat the plaintiffs' claim. The learned appellate Judge also held that it was sufficient for Section 58 to be attracted even if there be a single creditor whose claim is likely to be defeated.5. The only point urged by, the learned counsel for the appellants is ...

Feb 24 1959

Bootan Bai Vs. Durgaprasad Chatura

  • Decided on : 24-Feb-1959

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959MP410

... 9 of the Act with the provisions deciding an objection to an attachment under Order 21, rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The latter has been specifically stated to be a summary remedy, subject to the result of a declaratory suit as provided in Order 21, rule 63 of the Code. The remedy provided in Section 9 of the Act is not a summary remedy but ... the Code of Civil Procedure. The latter has been specifically stated to be a summary remedy, subject to the result of a declaratory suit as provided in Order 21, rule 63 of the Code. The remedy provided in Section 9 of the Act is not a summary remedy but is a regular suit between the parties. It appears to me that the jurisdiction of the regular civil ... regular civil Court. This objection has been overruled by the trial Court and the petitioner has, therefore, come up in revision.2. Section 9 of the Act provides for petitions for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition has to be filed in the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction and has to be decided in accordance with the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure ... with any of the provisions contained in this Act.'3. Prior to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the regular civil Courts had jurisdiction to entertain civil suits for restitution of conjugal rights by virtue of the provisions in Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with the provisions in the Hindu Law. The question is whether a suit would still be maintainable after ...

Dec 13 1962

Nityananda Mohapatra and Ors. Vs. Madhusudan Mohapatra and Ors.

  • Decided on : 13-Dec-1962

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1963Ori99

... revived merely because the unsuccessful claimant succeeded in his suit under Order 21 Rule 63 Civil Procedure Code.11. For these reasons Miscellaneous appeals Nos. 90 and 91 of 1960 are allowed, the order of the lower Court is set aside and E. P. No. 48 of 1958 and E. P. No. 58 (sic 73) of 1958 are both dismissed as non-maintainable. Miscellaneous Appeals 77 ... suit under Order 21 Rule 63 Civil Procedure Code would not affect the result. This may be so, so far as his interest in the property in concerned, but if the decree-holder wants to revive the Execution case and to proceed against the judgment-debtor once again in consequence of the claimant's success in his suit under Order 21, Rule 63 Civil Procedure Code, there is a clear ... suit under Order 21, Rule 63 Civil Procedure Code, there is a clear jeopardy to the judgment-debtor's interest. In such a case the fundamental principle that a party would not be bound by an order passed in his absence would apply with full force. If the judgment-debtor had been made a party in the suit under Order 21, Rule 63 Civil Procedure Code he would certainly have ... v. Gopaldas, AIR 1939 Sind 177 in support of his contention that the judgment-debtor was a necessary party in a suit filed by the unsuccessful claimant, under Order 21, Rule 63 Civil Procedure Code though he may not be a necessary party in such a suit brought by the decree-holder against the successful claimant. Though there is no direct decision applicable to the ...

Mar 14 1951

Durga Dei Vs. Sadananda Prusty and Ors.

  • Decided on : 14-Mar-1951

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1952Ori182

... the Code of Civil procedure, 1908, on a claim preferred to, or an objection made to, the attachment of property 'attached in execution of a decree'.' 24. The expression 'property attached in execution of a decree', in terms, does not apply to property attached before judgment, but judicial opinion has varied with regard to the interpretation of these words 25. Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code ... before judgment shall come to an end 'the true intention of any other rule is interfered with.' I have shown already that in the matter of application of Article 11 or in the matter of interpretation of Rules 58, 63 and the other rules already referred to by me, true intention of the rules shall be defeated unless we include 'attachment before judgment' which is being ... against whom any of the following orders has been made, to establish the right which he claims to the property comprised in the order: (1) Order under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), on the claim preferred to, or an objection made to the attachment of, property attached in execution of the decree;'Applying my mind to the language of this ... , (1) The suit must be one to establish the right which the plaintiff claims to a property, which should have been the subject-matter comprised in an Order under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (2) That order must have been made against the plaintiff; (3) That order must have been passed in relation to a claim preferred to the property in order to ...

Jan 23 1973

Jayakrishna Debata Vs. Chaitan Pani

  • Decided on : 23-Jan-1973

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1973Ori229; 39(1973)CLT316

... 1952 the defendant attached the suit property. The plaintiff, who purchased the suit land as mentioned above, preferred an objection under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code which was dismissed for default, whereupon he has filed this suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code for a declaration of his title and possession in respect of the suit property and for a permanent injunction on the defendant restraining ... held:'It (the term 'creditor') includes not only those creditors who have obtained decrees against their debtors, but also ordinary creditors whose claims have yet to be proved in a Civil Court.'The decision reported in AIR 1931 Oudh 333, (Parkash Narain v. Raja Birendra Bikram Singh) is also to the same effect.I am in full agreement with the above ... a debtor, under Section 53 of the T. P. Act it is not necessary that the money claims put forward against him should have been proved and decreed in the Civil Court or that the transferor should have been actually indebted at the time he makes the transfer. Moreover as seen from the above decisions the word 'creditor' in Section 53 ... . Defendant Jayakrishna Debata instituted Money Suit No. 112 of 1952 against one Jagannath Debata in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack and obtained a money decree on 6-1-58 against the said Jagannath. When the said suit, instituted in 1952, was pending in the Trial Court, Jagannath Debata sold the suit property along with some other lands as per ...

Sep 26 1968

Jai Bhagwan Vs. Om Prakash and Ors.

  • Decided on : 26-Sep-1968

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1969P& H308

... the judgment-debtor, filed objections under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, to the effect that 3/4th of the shop belonged to them and the judgment-debtor was the owner of the remaining 1/4th only. These objections were dismissed on 5th of October, 1960. Daulat Ram and others then filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, on 6th January, 1962, the suit was ... filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, on 6th January, 1962, the suit was decreed and it was held that the judgment-debtor owned only 1/4th share in the shop and the same was, therefore, not attachable and saleable.On 15th of January, 1962, Om Prakash filed an application under Section 144 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying that the auction price paid ... Bhagwan Judgment-debtor though served, did not appear.On 12th of June. 1963, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Section 47, 114, 144 and 151 and Order 21, Rule 91, Civil Procedure Code, praying that the balance of the auction-money after payment of the decretal amount, i.e. Rs. 4,000/-, be paid to him on a number of grounds that were ... 144, Civil Procedure Code. The order passed on that application by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge would be covered by the definition of 'decree' given in Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, where it was mentioned that a decree would be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 47 or Section 144, Civil Procedure Code.I ...

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