This order closed an execution petition pending for ten years due to the decree-holder's inability to suggest a mode of execution. The court held that execution cannot be kept pending indefinitely, defeating the limitation period, and the decree-holder must pay for its laxness.
The execution petition is closed and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~12
M/S WESTERN EXPRESS(SERVICES) ..... Judgement Debtor Through: Mr. K.K. Nareda, proprietor of JD in person.
EX.P. 252/2006
Page 1 of 2
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
NOVEMBER 21, 2016 ‘gsr’..
EX.P. 252/2006
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an execution petition pending for ten years without any effective mode of execution should be closed due to the decree-holder's delay and limitation period expiry.
Who bears the consequence of the decree-holder's failure to suggest a mode of execution for nearly a decade.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LIMITED
M/S WESTERN EXPRESS(SERVICES)
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
