Dismissed

Mahendra Pal v. Gyani Devi

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2018CLRE/143/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This dismissed civil revision challenged the recording of satisfaction by the executing court. The court held that while the judgment debtor faced potential damages for cutting trees, the satisfaction of the decree for specific performance suffered no jurisdictional error warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed for being without merit; objection regarding satisfaction of decree allowed no interference.

Mahendra Pal Vs Gyani Devi — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 143 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Mahendra Pal Opposite Party :- Gyani Devi Counsel for Revisionist :- Keshav Dhar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶6

The revision is directed against the order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 4, Bareilly in Execution Case No. 8 of 2014.

¶7

By the order impugned, the executing Court has recorded full satisfaction of the decree under execution.

¶8

The contention of counsel for the revisionist is that the decree was wrongly executed in collusion with the Amin , despite an interim order having been granted in favour of the revisionist at the appellate stage.

¶9

From the submissions made, it emerges that the case of the revisionist-judgment debtor is that some trees existing on the land in dispute have been cut by the decree holder. These trees which belonged to the revisionist, should not have been cut by the judgment debtor and to that extent the execution proceedings are vitiated. The illegality has resulted in loss to the revisionist.

¶10

The suit where from the execution case arises was a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell.

¶11

In my considered opinion, the arguments that are being raised may at best entitle the judgment debtor-revisionist to file a suit for 'damages'.

¶12

Insofar as the order regarding satisfaction of the decree for specific performance is concerned, the same calls for no interference as the same does not suffer from any jurisdictional error that would warrant interference.

¶13

Subject to the above observation, this revision is found to be without merit and is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.7.2018 Mayank

¶15

Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, PostalCode=211001, S=Uttar ANJANI Pradesh, Phone=f6e3ce979d8983acfc0b3ea04 9885bf64ad5bbb33050e3dfe3e21092 KUMAR 7d94f413, SERIALNUMBER=004ee64f25f9f36f85dbdc71f5b0ec1e2f0938431e25dbba dc93823915b36c6f, CN=ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Reason: I am the author of this MISHRAdocument Location: Date: 2018-07-13 17:08:54

Mahendra Pal v. Gyani Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Pal v. Gyani Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Kumar Rana Vs Rajwant Singh

Soni Singh Vs Abhishek Kumar Singh

Shikha Tiwari Vs Shailendra Mishra

Om Prakash Singh Vs Shri Ram Janki Kanya Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti and 6 Others

Smt. Phoolgena Devi Vs Bechu Chauhan

Umesh Bharadwaj Vs Anil Singh and Another