Abbas Ali Vs. Gulab Rai

Abbas Ali vs Gulab Rai

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Oct 23, 1929

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/464238

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/464238
Court: Allahabad
Decided On: Oct 23, 1929
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - We are clearly of opinion that the decree passed in the case was within jurisdiction and was capable of execution.

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abbas Ali

Respondent

Gulab Rai

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1930All520; 121Ind.Cas.818

Excerpt

- - we are clearly of opinion that the decree passed in the case was within jurisdiction and was capable of execution......the period of 15 months the decree-holder applied for a final decree to be passed in his favour. notice of this application was duly served upon the judgment-debtor but he did not contest the application. the result was that a final decree was passed on 6th february 1926.3. the decree-holder applied for the execution of this final decree and it was resisted by the judgment-debtor on the ground that the decree was passed without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity. it was contended that the original decree passed on 29th june 1923 was a self-contained decree which was capable of execution and that the provisions of order 34, rule 5, civil p.c., did not apply to such a decree. it was also contended that the decree dated 29th june 1923 was capable of execution within three years from the expiry of 15 months and that the present application was beyond that period and was therefore statute barred.4. it is not necessary to determine whether the provisions of order 34, rule 5, civil p.c., apply to the decree dated 29th june 1923. the short ground upon which the appeal can be disposed of is that the decree-holder rightly or wrongly applied to the proper court for preparing a final decree in the case. the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application. the judgment-debtor did not contest and the court eventually passed a final decree. we are clearly of opinion that the decree passed in the case was within jurisdiction and was capable of execution. the application for execution being within three years of the final decree is within time. we dismiss the appeal under order 41, rule 11, civil p.c.

Full Judgment

Sen, J.

1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises out of an application for execution which was made in the year 1928.

2. A compromise decree was obtained by the plaintiff-respondent in a suit for sale on a mortgage on 29th June 1923. The decree was passed in plaintiff's favour for Rs. 5,000 and the decree provided that the amount was to be paid by the judgment-debtor in easy instalments within 15 months of the date of the decree. Upon the expiry of the period of 15 months the decree-holder applied for a final decree to be passed in his favour. Notice of this application was duly served upon the judgment-debtor but he did not contest the application. The result was that a final decree was passed on 6th February 1926.

3. The decree-holder applied for the execution of this final decree and it was resisted by the judgment-debtor on the ground that the decree was passed without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity. It was contended that the original decree passed on 29th June 1923 was a self-contained decree which was capable of execution and that the provisions of Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P.C., did not apply to such a decree. It was also contended that the decree dated 29th June 1923 was capable of execution within three years from the expiry of 15 months and that the present application was beyond that period and was therefore statute barred.

4. It is not necessary to determine whether the provisions of Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P.C., apply to the decree dated 29th June 1923. The short ground upon which the appeal can be disposed of is that the decree-holder rightly or wrongly applied to the proper Court for preparing a final decree in the case. The Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application. The judgment-debtor did not contest and the Court eventually passed a final decree. We are clearly of opinion that the decree passed in the case was within jurisdiction and was capable of execution. The application for execution being within three years of the final decree is within time. We dismiss the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C.

Same Parties Abbas Ali vs Gulab Rai Same Subject Civil

Civil