Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: code of civil procedure 1908 rule 58 to 63 Page 14 of about 35,344 results (0.245 seconds)

Sep 09 1935 (PC)

Jamnabai Gulabchand Gujarati Vs. Dattatraya Ramchandra Gujarati

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1936Bom160; (1936)38BOMLR251

..... purchased the house as benamidar for her husband, defendant no. 1. on july 21, 1929, the house was attached, and defendant no. 2 objected to the attachment under order xxi, rule 58, civil procedure code. thereupon the plaintiff' withdrew the attachment, and the darkhast was disposed of. on october 1, 1929, the plaintiff started this suit asking for a declaration that the house in dispute ..... on that point.3. it is argued, however, that the plaintiff's suit does not lie. both the lower courts agreed that the suit does not fall within order xxi, rule 63, civil procedure code, which provides that-where a claim or an objection is preferred, the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims ..... that view. the first is mulk raj v. ralla ramrao mal i.l.r. (1926) lah. 235. all that the court there held was that the terms of order xxi, rule 63, do not apply where an attachment has been voluntarily withdrawn by an execution-creditor. the learned judges, however, do say, with reference to an argument that the suit was covered ..... had been made against him dismissing his attachment. but as that course was not adopted, 1 agree with the lower courts that the case does not fall within order xxi, rule 63, civil procedure code.4. the trial judge held that the case fell within section 53 of the transfer of property act, but i agree with the lower appellate court in thinking that that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1919 (PC)

Venkatachella Reddy Vs. Muthialu Reddy and ors.

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!

May 20 1912 (PC)

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

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.683

..... 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 ..... to accede to this prayer. the application clearly ought not to have been entertained. the objector, as we have already stated, made an application under 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 shows that where a claim of this character has been preferred, the party against whom the order has been made may institute a suit to ..... 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 schedule of the limitation act does not apply if the application has been refused ..... but 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1935 (PC)

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

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 165Ind.Cas.84

..... by 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 of ..... ' 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 on ..... case 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 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 aside ..... legal 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 the ..... continuance 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 be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1931 (PC)

Gangadhar Martand Joshi Vs. Sir Jagmohandas Varjivandas

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR781

..... 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 code, has no application, the appellant being the judgment-debtor. the application falls under section 47, civil procedure code, and article 165 of the indian limitation act has no application as the appellant had not been dispossessed, but rather article ..... the application is governed by section 47, civil procedure code. it is contended for the respondent that the application is barred as res judicata by reason of issue ..... argued for the appellant that the trial court appears to have had order xxi, rule 58, civil procedure code, in its mind, whereas the appellant being the judgment-debtor and not a third party ..... and the property was ordered to be sold through the collector. after the sale he applied that the property was not liable to sale under section 60 of the code of civil procedure. pending disposal of that objection the appellant was not dispossessed. the trial court dismissed the application as being unduly delayed. the judgment-debtor appeals.2. it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1922 (PC)

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

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 70Ind.Cas.648

..... article of the schedule 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 of the order. the ..... , and treat that order 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 delayed.3. and the ..... . that being so, 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.' it is argued, however ..... only, that where a 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 says:the language of order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 1924 (PC)

Sreenivasa Chariar Vs. Appavoo Reddy and ors.

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 24 1916 (PC)

Ponnurangam Pillai and ors. Vs. Lal Khan Sahib and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 37Ind.Cas.348

..... practice 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 code, advancing a claim to the moneys attached by b and that such a petition must be treated as made in the first suit ..... court than in any other description of property. the lower court's order, therefore, is not appealable as passed under section 47 of the civil procedure code. as regards the revision, there is no doubt no explicit provision in the code and so far as we have been shown, no authority for petitioners' right to sue. but their right is not negatived by that ..... on c'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 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 to this ..... is 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 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 in which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 1919 (PC)

Venkatasawmy Naidu Vs. Gurusawmi Iyer

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 56Ind.Cas.616

..... representative 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. ..... his 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, because the ..... 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). it has been stated that proceedings by way of suit are pending to set aside the decree of, and sale thereunder to, the appellant; if ..... 555 and errikullapa chetty v. official assignee of madras 32 ind. cas. 190 : 39 m.p 903 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, ..... property, which 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1917 (PC)

Gollanapalli Subbatya Vs. Sankara Venkataratnam and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 42Ind.Cas.683

..... the district munsif, but the subordinate judge has taken a different view. the question we have got to decide depends upon the proper interpretation of the rules relating to claims and especially of rule 63 of order xxi, civil procedure code. rule 63 says: 'where a claim or an objection is preferred, a party against whom an order is made may institute a suit to establish the right ..... set aside even though the attachment has been removed subsequent to the order. both upon authority and reason we hold that that is not what is intended by order xxi, rule 68. the full bench decision in kovouri basivireddi v. nidumoori ramayya 36 ind. cas. 445: 31 m. l. j. 394: (1916) 2 m. w. n. 207. has no bearing on ..... 1. the 1st respondent in this appeal put in a claim under order xxi, rule 58, civil procedure code, to certain property which had been attached at the instance of another person. there was another claim filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit and both claims were disposed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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