File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Comprehensive Study of Judgments: Sections 37-45

The Indian Legislature frames statutes to cater to the needs and protection of the people at large to achieve goals such as for its security, subsistence, abundance and equality. However, it is the judiciary that expands or restricts the scope and meaning of those statutory provisions through its interpretation. In light of this, the authors try to analyze the meaning, scope and applicability of Sections 37-45 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 through numerous judgements.

37. Definition of Court which passed a decree- The expression Court which passed a decree, or words to that effect, shall, in relation to the execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, be deemed to include,
(a) where the decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first instance, and
(b) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or, to have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree was passed was instituted at the time of making the application for the execution of the decree, would have jurisdiction to try such suit.

Explanation-The Court of first instance does not cease to have jurisdiction to execute a decree merely on the ground that after the institution of the suit wherein the decree was passed or after the passing of the decree. any area has been transferred from the jurisdiction of that court to the jurisdiction of any other court; but, in every such case, such other court shall also have jurisdiction to execute the decree, if at the time of making the application for execution of the decree it would have jurisdiction to try the said suit.

The explanation was inserted in 1976, which provides an answer to the question as to which of the two courts would have jurisdiction to execute the decree, where an area is transferred from the jurisdiction of the court of first instance to the jurisdiction of another court.

Court Which Passed A Decree

Section 38 indicates the courts by which decrees may be executed. A decree may be executed either by the court which passed it, or by the court to which it is sent for, execution. It may also be executed by the court to which it is transferred under section 24 above.[1] The present section explains the meaning of the expression Court Which passed a decree.

The expression Court which passed a decree includes not only the court which actually passed the decree, but the courts mentioned in clause (a) and (b) of the present Section. The following rules are deducible from this section and s 38:
  1. Where the decree to be executed is a decree of a court of first instance, the proper court to execute it is the court of first instance.
  2. Where the decree to be executed is a decree passed by a court of first appeal, the proper court to execute it is also the court of first instance.
  3. Where the decree to be executed is a decree passed by the High Court in second appeal, then also the proper court to execute it is the court of firm instance.
  4. Where the court of first instance has ceased to exist, or ceased to have jurisdiction to execute the decree, the only court that can execute the decree is the court which at the time of making the application for execution would have had jurisdiction to try the suit in which the decree was passed. The application for execution must be made to that court.

The definition is inclusive and it enlarges its scope with a view to afford greater facilities to a decree holder so that he can get the fruits of his decree.[2]

Where, after passing of the decree by court A, the territorial jurisdiction is transferred to court B, it is settled law that court A has jurisdiction to entertain the execution application,[3] but court A must transfer the same for execution to court B. having the jurisdiction. The question arises whether court B in the above case, has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for execution of the decree passed by court A without a formal transfer. On this question a decisions are conflicting, one view being that court B cannot entertain the application unless it is transferred to it by court A,[4]and the other being that it can entertain the application without any transfer by court A.[5] The Supreme Court, while leaving this question open, has held that the objection to jurisdiction can be waived.[6] The waiver has to be by the affected party.

Ceased To Have Jurisdiction To Execute

A court does not cease to have jurisdiction to execute its decree because it is abolished and re-established,[7]or merely because its business is transferred by the district judge under the Act constituting it, to another court,[8] or because the area in which the judgment-debtor resides is transferred from its jurisdiction to that of another court.[9]

If, after a court has passed a decree, the local area in which the property is situated is transferred to a different court, the decree-holder can apply for execution to the latter court, and that court can directly entertain an application for execution without an order of transfer by the court which had, in fact, passed the decree. The transfer of local area, automatically gives jurisdiction to the court to which the area has been transferred.[10]

Property Beyond Jurisdiction

for the matters related to property beyond jurisdiction, the case of Shaba Yeshwant Naik v. Vinod Kumar Gosalia is a landmark judgment which says that the court passing the decree cannot attach property outside its local jurisdiction.[11]

New Court
In s 37, the expression Court which passed the decree includes a court newly established having jurisdiction over a part of the territory.[12] The latter court can execute the decree without a transfer of the decree to it. In an earlier decision, the Mysore High Court[13] had taken the contrary view but, after the 1976 amendment this is no longer tenable. The newly created court also acquires jurisdiction besides the court which passed the decree.[14] The effect of the 1976 amendment is that the court which passed the decree and the newly established court both have jurisdiction.[15]

A preliminary decree though a decree, is not capable of execution normally till a final decree is passed, and in that sense, the court dealing with a preliminary decree may not be designated in law as an executing court within the meaning of S. 37.[16]

38. Court by which decree may be executed. --A decree may executed either by the Court which passed it, or by the Court to which it is sent for execution.

Jurisdiction of Court Executing A Decree

The following are the leading rules relating to the jurisdiction of courts executing decrees:

Rule I
No court can execute a decree in which the subject-matter of the suit of the application for execution is property situate entirely outside the local limits of its jurisdiction.
Territorial jurisdiction, in other words, is a condition precedent to a court executing a decree. Merely because a security bond has been furnished to the court Which passed the decree, the court cannot order sale of property, not situated in its jurisdiction. The decree-holder must obtain transfer of the decree.[17] But the executing court can appoint a Receiver for properties situate outside its jurisdiction.[18]

Exception I
The court which passed a decree for the enforcement of a mortgage of immovable property has the power to order the sale of such property in execution of its decree, though it may be situate beyond the local limits of its jurisdiction.

A sues B in a court in district X on a mortgage of two properties, one situate in district X and the other in district Y. A decree is passed for the sale of both the properties. The court in district X having jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of the property situate in district Y, also has that jurisdiction to sell that property in execution of its decree, though the property is situated beyond its jurisdiction. It is not bound to send the decree for execution as regards the property in district Y to the court of that district under s 39(c) but it may do so.[19] In the latter case, the decree as regards the property in district Y may be executed by the court of district Y.[20]

Exception II
Where after the passing of a decree in a suit for the enforcement of a mortgage, the whole of the immovable property included therein falls by transfer of jurisdiction, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another court, the application for the execution of the decree may be made either to the court which passed the decree (though the pr0perty is no longer within its jurisdiction), or to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property falls by such transfer. But where the application is made to the former court it should not itself order the property to be sold, but should transfer it to the latter court for passing and executing the order for sale.[21]

The question of whether a court to which a decree has been sent for execution, has the jurisdiction to execute the decree if the amount exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court has been decided by various High Courts and they have taken separate views. The Allahabad High Court in Shanti Lal v. Mt Jamni Kuer,[22] approved the decision of the Madras High Court that it can exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction. The High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Patna have however taken a different decision.

Rule V
A court to which execution of a decree is transferred, has no jurisdiction to order either the attachment or sale of immovable property in execution if at the time of the Order such court had no territorial jurisdiction over the property.[23]

Powers of Executing Court

A court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree. The court must take the decree as it finds it.[24] It cannot entertain any objection that the decree is incorrect on law or on facts, because until the decree is set aside by an appropriate proceedings in appeal or in revision, a decree even if erroneous, is binding between the parties. It has to see thee decree as it is and execute it in accordance with the terms therein.[25] It cannot question the correctness or legality of the directions.[26] However, if the court which passed the decree has no inherent jurisdiction, the decree is incapable of execution.[27] Dealing with this question, the Supreme Court observed in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan[28] that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up wherever and whenever it is sought to be enforced whether in execution or in collateral proceedings.

39. Tranfer of decree-

  1. The Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another Court—
    (a) if the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain. within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or
    (b) if such person has not property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree sufficient to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or
    (c) if the decree directs the sale or delivery of immovable property situate outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed it, or
    (d) if the Court which passed the decree considers for any other reasons, which it shall record in writing, that the decree should be executed by such other Court.
  2. The Court which passed a decree may of its own motion send it for execution to any subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction.
  3. For the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction if, at the time of making the application for the transfer of decree to it, such Court would have jurisdiction to try the suit in which such decree was passed.
  4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise the Court which passed a decree to execute such decree against any person or property outside the local limits of Its jurisdiction.

Another Court
The court to which the decree is sent is the another court within the meaning of s. 39 that court must be a court in India.[29] Such court must be of competent jurisdiction i.e., it must be a court which, at the time of transfer of decree, would have the jurisdiction to try the suit wherein the decree was passed. It does not mean a court of equal jurisdiction.[30] Decrees cannot be sent to courts outside India except in the case for which S.45 makes a special provision.[31]

Jurisdiction of The Transferee Court

The transferee court gets jurisdiction to execute the decree only when there is an order of transfer of decree by the court which passed the decree. After the transfer of a decree, the transferee court has all the powers to execute the decree as if it had been passed by the transferee court and it is the transferee court which will decide all questions arising in execution proceedings.[32]
The whole decree must be transferred. A part of the decree cannot be sent to another court for execution.[33]

40. Transfer of Decree to Court in another State- Where a decree is sent for execution in another State it shall be sent to such Court and executed in such manner as may be prescribed by rules in force in that State.

Executed In Such A Manner As May Be Prescribed By Rules In Force In That State
The manner of execution is that of the court which executes the decree, but rules of limitation regarding execution of the decree are governed by the laws applicable to the court.[34]

It has accordingly been held that when a decree passed by the Madras High Court was transferred for execution to a court in the State of Mysore, the judgement-debtor was not entitled to relief under the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act as that was a matter of substantive right.[35]

The word rules in the section means rules framed under s. 122. Where no rules have been framed under s. 122, the decree does not become inexecutable. The execution in such cases would be governed by the rules in the First Schedule.[36]


Section 41 states the result of execution proceedings to be certified

The Court to which a decree is sent for execution shall certify to the Court which passed it the fact of such execution, or where the former Court fails to execute the same the circumstances attending such failure.[37]
The court must certify the result of the execution to the court which passed the decree and transferred it for execution. In Inderchand v. Baansropan,[38] the transferee court ceases to have seizin of the execution proceeding when the certificate is sent and until then, the decree rests in it.

In Basheer Ahmad v. Padmanabha,[39] it was held that the court has no power to issue a certificate under this section so long as the execution case is pending before it. A certificate has to be issued under this section only when the transferee court has executed the decree.

In Prahlad v. Thakur,[40] the court held that where the transferee court has failed to execute the decree, it must certify the circumstances attending on such failure.

The act of certification is a judicial and not an administrative one. The mere sending of a copy of the order of dismissal without a non-satisfaction report is not compliance with section 41.[41] The certificate required by the section enjoins the transferee court to apply its mind and affirm the statement of fact that execution was either made or could not be made after bona fide efforts to do so. The provisions of this section are mandatory and therefore the transferee court has to strictly adhere to them.

Section 42 states the powers of court in executing transferred decrees

  1. The Court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself. All persons disobeying or obstructing the execution of the decree shall be punishable by such Court in the same manner as if it had passed the decree. And its order in executing such decree shall be subject to the same rules in respect of appeal as if the decree had been passed by itself.
  2. Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1) the powers of the Court under that subsection shall include the following powers of the Court passed the decree, namely:—
    (a) power to send the decree for execution to another Court under section 39;
    (b) power to execute the decree against the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor under section 50;
    (c) power to order attachment of a decree.
  3. A Court passing an order in exercise of the powers specified in sub-section (2) shall send a copy thereof to the Court which passed the decree.
  4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to confer on the Courts to which a decree is sent for execution any of the following powers, namely—
    (a) power to order execution at the instance of the transferee of the decree;
    (b) in the case of a decree passed against a firm, power to grant leave to execute such decree against any person other than such a person as is referred to in clause (b), or clause (c), of sub-rule (1) of rule 50 of Order XXI.[42]

Powers of court executing transferred decree-

The court executing a transferred decree has the same powers as if the decree had been passed by itself. In Jonalagadda v. Sivaramakrishna Rao,[43] it was held that it can sell properties outside its territorial jurisdiction under the same circumstances under which the transferor court could. Successive execution applications must be made to the transferee court and its jurisdiction continues until:
  1. the execution proceeding is withdrawn from it or
  2. it has certified execution or execution as far as possible, or failure to execute under section 41.[44]
The mere striking off or rejection of an execution application for some informality in the application does not terminate the jurisdiction of the transferee court to execute the decree or render it necessary to send a certificate to the transferor court.[45]

If the application is dismissed for non-prosecution and a certificate of failure of execution is sent, the only court that can entertain a fresh application is the court that passed the decree. Where a decree passed by court A is transferred for execution to court B, court B can execute the appellate decree without a further order or transfer from court A after the decree is confirmed or modified in appeal.[46] The transferee court can decide when executing a decree for specific performance, whether the defendant is in a position to perform his part.[47]

Section 42(2)[48] declares that the transferee court has the power to (i) send the decree for execution to another court (ii) execute the decree against the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor, and (iii) order attachment of a decree and if the transferee court exercises any such power, it has to transmit a copy of its order to the court which passed the decree under Section 42(3).[49]

Limitation on the powers of the transferee court-

The jurisdiction of the transferee court is limited to the execution of the decree transferred to it and its powers are limited in the same way as if it were its own decree. It cannot entertain an objection as to the legality or correctness of the decree, not that the decree is defective,[50] or that it was obtained by fraud[51] or that it directs a sale of property which is not saleable under section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code.[52] It cannot alter, vary or add to the terms of the decree, or allow future interest where none it allowed by the decree,[53] nor can it question the right of a transferee of a decree whose name is on the record as the person entitled to execute it.[54] It can, however, refuse to execute the decree if it finds that the decree was against a dead person.[55] It cannot stay execution under Order 21, rule 29.[56]

The transferee court has no power to question the jurisdiction of the court that passed the decree.[57] If the court that passed the decree has made an order for execution, the transferee court cannot question the legality or propriety of that order. It cannot, therefore, entertain an objection that the execution of the decree was barred by limitation at the time when the order for execution was made.[58] Even when the transferor court merely makes an order for transfer without deciding the question of limitation, the matter is constructively res judicata and hence, not open for consideration in the transferee court.[59] However, if the court transferring a decree enters a wrong amount in the certificate, the court executing the decree can correct the error.[60]

Power of the transferor court after transfer of the decree-

After transferring a decree to another court for execution, the court which passed the decree cannot itself execute it, and an application for execution made to it after the transfer and before a certificate of non-satisfaction under section 41 has been returned, is not even a step in aid of execution so as to save limitation.[61]


Section 43 states the execution of decrees passed by Civil Courts in places to which this Code does not extend

Any decree passed by any Civil Court established in any part of India to which the provisions of this Code do not extend, or by any Court established or continued by the authority of the Central Government outside India, may, if it cannot be executed within the jurisdiction of the Court by which it was passed, be executed in the manner herein provided within the jurisdiction of any Court in the territories to which this Code extends.[62]

Under this section, read with sections 44 and 45, the Indian courts have power:

  1. to execute decrees of those Indian courts to which the Code does not apply, such as Schedule Districts;
  2. to execute decrees of civil courts outside India, which are established by the authority of the Central Government;
  3. to execute the decrees of revenue courts in any part of India, to which the provisions of the Code do not apply;
  4. to execute decrees of Indian courts in the state to which the state government has notified that section 45 would apply.[63]

Section 45 contemplates courts established by the Central Government. The words any pan of India to which the provisions of this Code do not extend have been construed to include the sovereign states like former Indian states to which the Code could not be extended.[64]

Section 44 states the execution of decrees passed by Revenue Court in places to which this Code does not extend

The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the decrees of any Revenue Court in any part of India to which the provisions of this Code do not extend or any class of such decrees, may be executed in the State as if they had been passed by Courts in that State.[65]

A notification under this section does not alter the character or incidents of a. foreign judgment.[66] Accordingly an ex parte decree passed by a foreign court against a non-resident foreigner does not become executable by reason of the notification.[67] The relevant date for executability is the date when the order is to be made, so that if the notification was made on or before that date, the section would apply.[68]

The period of limitation for executing decrees executable in India, is the period prescribed by the law of India in force at the place where the execution is applied for.[69]

Section 44A states the execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory

  1. Where a certified copy of decree of any of the superior Courts of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court.
  2. Together with the certified copy of the decree shall be filed a certificate from such superior Court stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted and such certificate shall, for the purposes of proceedings under this section, be conclusive proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment.
  3. The provisions of section 47 shall as from the filing of the certified copy of the decree apply to the proceedings of a District Court executing a decree under this section, and the District Court shall refuse execution of any such decree, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the decree falls within any of the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13.

Explanation 1-
Reciprocating Territory means any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section; and superior Courts, with reference to any such territory, means such Courts as may be specified in the said notification.

Explanation 2- Decree with reference to a superior Court means any decree or judgment of such Court under which a sum of money is payable, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes or other charges of a like nature or in respect to a fine or other penalty, but shall in no case include an arbitration award, even if such an award is enforceable as a decree or judgment.[70]

Courts in India do not possess the same power as courts of the reciprocating territory[71] And, a decree of a non-reciprocating territory cannot be executed in India.[72]

The words District Courts in the section include the High Court in its original side. And the words as if it had been passed by the district court have the effect of making the entire scheme of Order 21 applicable in respect of execution of decrees of foreign courts.[73] However, the induction of Order 21 and its scheme does not have the effect of barring the judgment-debtor from raising any plea based on cll (a) to (t) of section 13.[74] The court shall refuse execution if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the decree falls within any of the exceptions in cll (a) to (f) of section 13.[75]

A petition for the execution of a decree passed by a judge in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) was filed in the court at T in India. The judgment debtor opposed it, pleading that the decree is not conclusive and came within the exceptions under section 13, cll (a), (c), (d) and (e). In reply, the decree-holder med photostat copies of the summons served on the second occasion, affidavit of process server of the foreign court and the letter passed by the judgment-debtor, where, by acknowledging the receipt of the summons on the fast occasion and a statement of the claim, judgment-debtor had given consent to take judgment for the suit amount. The judgment-debtors contentions were overruled.[76]

Section 45 states the execution of decrees outside India

So much of the foregoing sections of this Part as empowers a Court to send a decree for execution to another Court shall be construed as empowering a Court in any State to send a decree for execution to any Court established by the authority of the Central Government outside India to which the State Government has by notification in the Official Gazette declared this section to apply.[77]

This is the only section which refers to the execution of a decree of Indian courts in foreign territory. Such decrees can only be executed in foreign territory by courts established thereby the Central Government and empowered by a notification under this section. It is only when the court in a foreign territory is a court established by the Central Government in the extra territorial jurisdiction that there is power to provide for the transfer to it of decrees of Indian courts for execution; for in foreign territory, execution would be pursuant to the legislative authority or sovereign power of such State or territory.[78]

The three previous sections dealt with the converse case of the execution by Indian courts of decrees of:

  1. Indian courts in which the provisions of the Code do not extend (section 43)
  2. Courts outside India which are established or continued by the Central Government (section 43)
  3. Revenue Courts situate in India (section 44)
  4. Superior Courts of any reciprocating territory (section 44A)
All other decrees of foreign courts, that is, courts outside India not notified under s 44 must be enforced by suit.

Conclusion:
From the above judgments we can see that the Courts have interpreted the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 through various landmark judgments leaving less ambiguity in the terms which make the law. There are still various decisions of the High Courts which are varying and a definite decision has not been given by the Supreme Court. Even though this is the situation, these judgments have helped the Courts understand the provisions in a better way.

End-Notes
  1. Muhammad v Tikamchand (1925) LR 47 All 57, 58, 85 IC 746.
  2. Kasturi Rao v Mehar Singh AIR 1959 Punj 350
  3. Ramanna v Nallappa Raju, AIR 1956 SC 87.
  4. Gowrammal v Ungappa Gouder, AIR 1968 Mad 90.
  5. Meher Singh v Kasturi Ram, AIR 1962 Punj 394.
  6. Supra note 3 at 87
  7. Khodaijatul v Harihar, AIR 1926 Pat 209.
  8. Masrab Khan v Debnath Mali, AIR 1942 Cal 321.
  9. Muthukaruppa v Pair Kavundan, AIR 1924 Mad 32.
  10. Hamir Singh v. Bhawani Shanker, AIR 1980 Raj 134.
  11. Shaba Yeshwant Naik v. Vinod Kumar Gosalia, AIR 1985 Bom 99.
  12. Laxmi v. Karnataka Bank, AIR 1988 Kant 44.
  13. Gopal Krishan v. TG Laxman Shabhoque, AIR 1964 Mys 34.
  14. Syndicate Bank v. Mahadevappa, AIR 1985 Kant 85.
  15. Ibid.
  16. Atava Akklamma v. Gajiela Papi Raddy, AIR 1995 AP 166.
  17. Citi Bank NA, New Delhi v lndo American Electricals Ltd AIR 1981 Del 27.
  18. Benaras Ice Factory v. Shukalal, AIR 1961 CAL 422.
  19. Maseyk v. Steel, (1887) ILR 14 Cal 661.
  20. Aziz Baksh v. Sultan Singh, (1918) PR No 43.
  21. Latchman v. Maddan, (1881) ILR 6 Cal 513.
  22. Shanti Lal v. Mt Jamni Kuer, AIR 1940 All 331.
  23. Vasireddi Srimanthu v. Venkatappayya, AIR 1947 Mad 347.
  24. VD Modi v. RA Rehman, AIR 1970 SC 1475.
  25. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mangi Lal, AIR 1998 SC 743.
  26. State Bank of Travancore v. Indexport Registered, AIR 1992 SC 1750.
  27. Janendra Mohan v. Rabindra Nath, AIR 1933 PC 61.
  28. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340.
  29. Chinnaswami v. Annamalai, AIR 1941 Mad 309.
  30. Chandrawathi Amma v. Cheripumma, AIR 1966 Ker 318.
  31. Firm Hansraj v. Firm Lalji Raja & Sons, AIR 1963 SC 1180.
  32. Mahadeo Prasad Singh v. Ram Lochan, AIR 1981 SC 416.
  33. Kusum v. Sailen, AIR 1935 Cal 118.
  34. Inderchand v. Bansropan, AIR 1948 Pat 307.
  35. Basheer Ahmed v. Padmanabha, AIR 1953 Mys 37.
  36. Chhaganlal v. Shyamlal, AIR 1960 MP 387
  37. Section 41, Code of Civil Procedure, Act no. 05 of 1908
  38. Inderchand v. Baansropan, (1947) 26 Pat 307.
  39. Basheer Ahmad v. Padmanabha, AIR 1953 Mys 37
  40. Prahlad v. Thakur, AIR 1961 Pat 149
  41. Shimoga Oil Mills v. Sri Radhakrishna Oil Mills, AIR 1969 Pat 263
  42. Section 42, Code of Civil Procedure, Act no. 05 of 1908
  43. Jonalagadda v. Sivaramakrishna Rao, AIR 1944 Mad 145
  44. Vithu v. Ganesh, AIR 1923 Bom 396
  45. Abda Begum v. Muzaffar, (1898) 20 All 129
  46. Bhagmal v. Purushotham, AIR 1963 MP 154
  47. Jai Narain v. Kedarnath, AIR 1956 SC 359
  48. Section 42(2), Code of Civil Procedure, Act no. 05 of 1908
  49. Section 42(3), Code of Civil Procedure, Act no. 05 of 1908
  50. Rajerav v. Nanarav, (1887) 11 Bom 528.
  51. Pexata v. Digambar, (1891) 15 Bom 307.
  52. Sudhashiv v. Jayanti, (1884) 8 Bom 185.
  53. Gajadhar v. Firm Manulal, AIR 1925 Pat 807.
  54. Prithi Chand v. Satya, AIR 1932 Pat 158.
  55. Radha Kishen v. Bihari Lal, AIR 1934 Lah 117
  56. Shaukat Hussain v. Bhuvaneshwari Devi, AIR 1973 SC 528
  57. Hari v. Narsingrao, (1914) ILR 38 Bom 194
  58. Husein v. Sanju, (1891) ILR 15 Bom 28
  59. Sunder Rao v. Appiah Naidu, 1954 ILR Mys 153
  60. Mangal Chand v. Dulari, 1938 All LJ 980
  61. Krishna v. Ganga, 1946 ILR Pat 790
  62. Section 43, Code of Civil Procedure, Act no. 05 of 1908
  63. Kishendas v. Indo-Carnatic Bank, AIR 1958 AP 407
  64. Kantilal v. Dominion of India, AIR 1954 Cal 67
  65. Section 44, Code of Civil Procedure, Act no. 05 of 1908
  66. Nilratan v. Cooch Behar Loan Officer, AIR 1954 Cal 64
  67. Rajendra v. Shankar, AIR 1958 All 775
  68. Chunilal Kasturchand v. Dundappa, AIR 1951 Bom 190
  69. Amarnath v. Naraindas, AIR 1947 Oudh 206
  70. Section 44-A, Code of Civil Procedure, Act no. 05 of 1908
  71. Sheikh Ali v. Sheikh Mohd, AIR 1967 Mad 45
  72. Muthiah Chettiar v. Firm Shwebo, AIR 1957 Mad 25
  73. Supra note 35
  74. Morteys Biham Ltd. v. Roshan Lal, AIR 1961 Bom 156
  75. International Wollen Mills v. Standard Wool Ltd, [2001] 2 LRI 765
  76. Mohd Abdulla v. PM Abdul Rahim, AIR 1985 Mad 379
  77. Section 45, Code of Civil Procedure, Act no. 05 of 1908
  78. Pierce Leslie v. Perumal, (1917) ILR 40 Mad 1069

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers



Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


LawArticles

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

Titile

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of th...

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi

Titile

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Whether Caveat Application is legally pe...

Titile

Whether in a criminal proceeding a Caveat Application is legally permissible to be filed as pro...

The Factories Act,1948

Titile

There has been rise of large scale factory/ industry in India in the later half of nineteenth ce...

Constitution of India-Freedom of speech ...

Titile

Explain The Right To Freedom of Speech and Expression Under The Article 19 With The Help of Dec...

Copyright: An important element of Intel...

Titile

The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has its own economic value when it puts into any market ...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online


File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly