Petitioner appealed the execution court's issuance of a notice under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC without ordering attachment. Court dismissed revision noting time limit to set aside ex parte decree was not expired and Section 52 TPA provides protection.
Revision petition dismissed; pending applications closed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Revision Petition No.2393 of 2018
Order:
Aggrieved by the action of the Executing Court in merely ordering a notice in the execution petition without ordering attachment, the decree-holder has come up with the above revision petition.
2
for setting aside the ex parte decree has not expired on 08-3-2018. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have serious grievance about the action of the Court below.
___________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
13th April, 2018. Ak
3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Civil Revision Petition No.2393 of 2018
13th April, 2018. (Ak)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether mandatory attachment under Order XXI, Rule 54 CPC is required when appeal/jurisdiction lapses for setting aside ex parte decree.
Whether Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provides sufficient protection against attachment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
V.Ramasubramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
