Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rajinder Prasad and ors. Vs. Devi Dayal

Rajinder Prasad and ors. vs Devi Dayal

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 08, 1983
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/683973

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Regular First Appeal No. 53 of 1983
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 21 Rule 58(5)--Separate suit lies only if objections are dismissed on the g round that the property had been sold or on the ground that the court will not entertain the objections because they are delayed that the proviso applies. -

Key legal issue
Civil
Acts & sections
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rule 58(5)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajinder Prasad and ors.

Advocate J.P. Sharma and; J.K. Seth, Advs

Respondent

Devi Dayal

Legal References

Acts
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rule 58(5)
Reported In
1983(5)DRJ221

Excerpt

civil procedure code, 1908 - order 21 rule 58(5)--separate suit lies only if objections are dismissed on the g round that the property had been sold or on the ground that the court will not entertain the objections because they are delayed that the proviso applies. - d.k. kapur, j.(1) we have heard the parties on the question of maintainability of the suit which is the only issue decided by the trial court. the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it has rightly been held that the suit does not lie.(2) we have gone through the orders and the judgment. the suit only lies under order 21 rule 58(5) of the code of civil procedure if the objections are dismissed under the proviso to order 21 rule 58(1). it does not appear that the objections were dismissed by application of the proviso they were dismissed on the merits. learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was hardly any trial. on the other hand, whether the objections are dismissed on a full trial or on any other ground they are dismissed. it is only if they are dismissed on the ground that the property had been sold or on the ground that the court will not entertain the objections because they are delayed that the proviso applies. it is only in this case that the suit can be filed.(3) as the proviso was not applied, the suit also did not lie and the trial court had rightly dismissed the same. we may also mention that against the objections the petitioner came in revision to this court which was dismissed in the default. it was restored but it was again dismissed for non prosecution we, accordingly, find that we cannot but dismiss the appeal in liming.

Full Judgment

D.K. Kapur, J.

(1) We have heard the parties on the question of maintainability of the suit which is the only issue decided by the trial court. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it has rightly been held that the suit does not lie.

(2) We have gone through the orders and the judgment. The suit only lies under Order 21 Rule 58(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure if the objections are dismissed under the proviso to Order 21 Rule 58(1). It does not appear that the objections were dismissed by application of the proviso They were dismissed on the merits. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was hardly any trial. On the other hand, whether the objections are dismissed on a full trial or on any other ground they are dismissed. It is only if they are dismissed on the ground that the property had been sold or on the ground that the court will not entertain the objections because they are delayed that the proviso applies. It is only in this case that the suit can be filed.

(3) As the proviso was not applied, the suit also did not lie and the trial court had rightly dismissed the same. We may also mention that against the objections the petitioner came in revision to this court which was dismissed in the default. It was restored but it was again dismissed for non prosecution We, accordingly, find that we cannot but dismiss the appeal in liming.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial