Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MADHU versus IX A.D.J.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Madhu v. Ix A.D.J. - WRIT - C No. 11458 of 1990 [2007] RD-AH 11825 (12 July 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 18th January, 1990 passed by the IX Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad by which the revision filed against the judgment and order dated 21st December, 1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ghaziabad has been allowed.

The dispute raised in the present case is in respect of the execution case that had been filed by the landlord for execution of the decree for rent and ejectment. In the execution proceedings the landlord got the possession of the shop in dispute and the articles that had been kept in the shop were given in the Supurdagi of one Sri Tola Ram Kirana. For recovery of the decreetal amount of Rs.7439.25, the decree-holder filed another execution case and the articles kept in Supurdagi were attached. The petitioner filed objections but ultimately it is stated that a compromise was entered into between the parties that the landlord will accept only Rs.1500/- and the attached articles will be returned to the petitioner failing which the landlord will pay Rs.8000/-. It is said that the said attached articles were not returned to the petitioner as a result of which the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for realisation of Rs.8000/-. The learned Civil Judge by the judgment and order dated 21st December, 1988 ordered for payment of Rs.8000/- to the petitioner. It is against this order that the landlord filed a revision which has been allowed holding that the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable.

The Revisional Court has given cogent reasons for allowing the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out as to how this application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable.

In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date:12.7.2007

GS-11458-90


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.