Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376020',
			'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376020',
		(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376020',
		'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376020',
	(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376020/dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376020',
			'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376020',
		(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376020',
		'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376020',
	(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376020/dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- section 11: [b. sreenivase gowda, j] third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a b.b.m.p. employee question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information? held, the information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and assets and liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of section 11 of the act. if the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or record or part thereof and invite the third.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376020',
			'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376020',
		(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376020',
		'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376020',
	(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376020/dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376020',
			'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376020',
		(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376020',
		'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376020',
	(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376020/dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. the respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. the decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the respondent on august 16, 1958 was in time. it is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on august 16, 1955. but when the second execution application was presented on august 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on july 23, 195s, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376020',
			'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376020',
		(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376020',
		'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376020',
	(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376020/dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376020',
			'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376020',
		(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376020',
		'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376020',
	(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376020/dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376020',
			'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376020',
		(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376020',
		'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376020',
	(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376020/dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376020',
			'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376020',
		(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376020',
		'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376020',
	(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376020/dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376020',
			'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376020',
		(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376020',
		'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376020',
	(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376020/dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376020',
			'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376020',
		(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376020',
		'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376020',
	(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376020/dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Appeal dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '376020',
			'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
			'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '376020',
		(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Dodda Muniamma and ors Vs G Bhaktavammal - Citation 376020 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '376020',
		'acts' => 'Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 50',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961',
		'appellant' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 11: [B. Sreenivase Gowda, J] Third partys right to seek information regarding service conditions  Application seeking information regarding service conditions and assets and liabilities of a B.B.M.P. employee  Question whether the employee has to be heard before disclosing information?  Held, The information sought by applicant is relating to the service conditions and Assets and Liabilities of the employee and it is a third party information within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. If the authorities intend to disclose such third party information and if it has been treated as confidential one then they shall issue a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that they intend to disclose the information or  record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept on view while taking a  decision about disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. On facts, held, The 4th respondent is seeking the information relating to the service conditions, assets and liabilities off the petitioner whether the information sought by the 4th respondent can be furnished or not is an issue required to be decided by Respondent No.1 to 3 by considering the objections filed by the petitioner and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hear the petitioner before disclosing his information to respondent No. 4 as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act.  -  182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.R. Janardanam, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1963-06-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.</p><p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.</p><p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.</p><p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.</p><p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.</p><p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'G. Bhaktavammal',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '376020',
	(int) 1 => 'dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/376020/dodda-muniamma-ors-vs-g-bhaktavammal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The Respondent in this appeal is the decree-holder and the appellants are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtors. The decree obtained by the respondent was a money decree and the question involved in this appeal is whether the execution application presented bye the Respondent on August 16, 1958 was in time. It is admitted that before that execution application was presented, the respondent had presented another application which was dismissed by the executing court on August 16, 1955. But when the second execution application was presented on August 16, 1958 what was contended before the executing court was that since the original judgment-debtor had died on July 23, 195S, the! execution application presented by the respondent should have been presented on or before July 23, 1958 and not thereafter. This novel contention found favour with the executing court with the result that the respondent's execution application was dismissed.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>But in the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court took the only view which was possible in the case and reversing that order of the executing Court, remitted the execution application to that Court so that execution may proceed. The view taken by the appellate court was that under the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, the execution application presented by the respondent within three years from the date on which a final Order had been made on the previous application which was undoubtedly made in accordance with law was well within time.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Nagesh Rao appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that since the original judgment-debtor died on July 23, 1955, the order made by the executing court on the earlier execution application on August 16, 1955 is a nullity since there was no valid pending proceeding before the executing court after the date of death of the judgment-debtor in which that Order could have been passed. It is impossible to accede to this contention. Under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>Under the provisions of this Section It is open to the decree-holder either to ask the executing court to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record or to present another execution petition. Whatever may be the course he chooses to adopt, it would be impossible to say that the moment that a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed the execution proceedings pending against that judgment-debtor perish with his death. That execution application still continues to be pending, and if the decree-holder intimate the executing court that since the judgment-debtor Is dead the execution application may be dismissed so that he might present another application, and the Court dismisses the execution application on that submission as was done in this case, the order of dismissal made by the executing court is undoubtedly a final order falling within clause (5) of Art. 182 of the Limitation Act affording to the decree-holder a fresh starting point of limitation from its date.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. That being so, this appeal is without substance and is dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Limitation
Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Jun-05-1963
Case Number	Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1961
Judge	A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.
Reported in	AIR1964Kant211; AIR1964Mys211
Acts	Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 182(5); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 50
Appellant	Dodda Muniamma and ors.
Respondent	G. Bhaktavammal
Appellant Advocate	S.J. Srinivasan, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	M.R. Janardanam, Adv.

Dodda Muniamma and ors. Vs. G. Bhaktavammal - Court Judgment