Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - 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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$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

civil procedure code, 1908 (central act no. 5 of 1908) - order 21 rule 59 -- grant of stay only during pendency of objection regarding property attached.;after objection to attachment made under order 21 rule 58 was rejected, application filed under order 21 rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable. in revision : ;from a reading of rule 59 of order 21, it becomes clear that the executing court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. from this it follows that the executing court is, under.....

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$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

ordervenkatachala, j.1. scope and ambit of rule 59 of order 21 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 ('the code'), arise for determination in this revision petition.2. the petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in o.s. no. 7/82, on the file of the court of civil judge at bidar, for recovery of certain money. in executing that money decree in execution petition case no. 50/82, on the file of the court of munsiff at basava kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in survey no. 56 situated at talbhog village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. the petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under rule 58 of order 21 of the code, sought for release of the.....

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-',
	(int) 5 => '<p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or',
	(int) 6 => '<p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$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

ORDER

Venkatachala, J.

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-',
	(int) 5 => '<p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or',
	(int) 6 => '<p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$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

1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-',
	(int) 5 => '<p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or',
	(int) 6 => '<p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$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. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-',
	(int) 5 => '<p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or',
	(int) 6 => '<p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$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

3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-',
	(int) 5 => '<p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or',
	(int) 6 => '<p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$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

'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-',
	(int) 5 => '<p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or',
	(int) 6 => '<p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$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

a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-',
	(int) 5 => '<p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or',
	(int) 6 => '<p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$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

b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-',
	(int) 5 => '<p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or',
	(int) 6 => '<p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 7
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

14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-',
	(int) 5 => '<p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or',
	(int) 6 => '<p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 8
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

5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-',
	(int) 5 => '<p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or',
	(int) 6 => '<p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 9
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

6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.

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' => 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '383959',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
			'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatachala, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
			'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '383959',
		(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amruthrao Vs Viswanath - Citation 383959 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '383959',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Order 21, Rule 59',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Amruthrao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath',
		'casenote' => 'CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act  No. 5  of  1908) - Order 21 Rule 59 -- Grant of stay only during  pendency of objection regarding property attached.;After objection to attachment made under Order 21 Rule 58 was rejected, application filed under Order 21 Rule 59 seeking stay of sale of attached property was dismissed as not maintainable.   In Revision : ;From a reading of Rule 59 of Order 21, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached; even though it had been  advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim on the objections made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to
withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under Entry 4408.90, Chapter 44 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  Confirmed by Tribunal - By virtue of Section 11-AA authorities called upon assessee to pay interest amount along with outstanding duty  Held,  In the present situation and in the prevailing state of affairs, petitioner is not entitled to agitate the question as it fact it has already been answered against the petitioner/assessee in the earlier proceedings. The levy of interest under Section 11-AA happens to be a consequential proceeding i.e., consequential to the order passed under Section 11-A. Therefore, if the Section 11-A order whether right or otherwise had between the parties attained finality and had been affirmed by this Court, it is no more open to the petitioner to contend that the order under Section 11-A was bad in law and therefore the further invocation of the provisions of Section 11-AA is also equally bad in law.  -  5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.S. Savanur, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1985-01-16',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkatachala, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.</p><p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.</p><p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.</p><p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :</p><p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-</p><p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or</p><p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'</p><p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.</p><p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.</p><p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR1985KAR3272',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Viswanath',
		'sub' => 'Property;Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '383959',
	(int) 1 => 'amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/383959/amruthrao-vs-viswanath'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatachala, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, though could have been appealed against by the petitioners as a decree, was not so appealed against. However, the petitioners here filed an application under Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code in the same Court, seeking stay of sale of the aforesaid land, which had been attached. That application having been treated as Execution Case No. 50/82, the same has been dismissed as not maintai-nable.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code reads :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'59. Stay of sale. - Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may-',
	(int) 5 => '<p>a) if the property is moveable, make an order postponing the sale pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, or',
	(int) 6 => '<p>b) if the property is immovable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication,the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>14. From a reading of the above rule, it becomes clear that the executing Court is enabled thereunder to grant stay of sale of the property attached, even though it had been advertised for sale, or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation, pending adjudication upon the claim of the objection made before it respecting the property so attached. From this it follows that the executing Court is, under Rule 59, enabled to grant stay of sale of property attached or if such sale is allowed to take place, to withhold its confirmation only when the objection respecting the property attached is pending adjudication before it and not otherwise.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. In the instant case, when admittedly the executing Court had dismissed the objection of the petitioners here, raised before it regarding the property attached, well before the application for stay was made by them, there was no scope for that Court to grant stay of sale of the property attached. Hence, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application for stay made before it by the petitioners here; by its order now under revision.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the result, I dismiss this Revision Petition without admitting it.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 10
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	Property;Civil
Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Jan-16-1985
Case Number	C.R.P. No. 1964 of 1985
Judge	Venkatachala, J.
Reported in	ILR1985KAR3272
Acts	Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 21, Rule 59
Appellant	Amruthrao
Respondent	Viswanath
Advocates:	K.S. Savanur, Adv.
Disposition	Petition dismissed

Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath - Court Judgment