Prasanta Banerji Vs. Pushpa Ashoke Chandani & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.2151 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3702 of 1999)
Petitioner: Prasanta Banerji
Respondent: Pushpa Ashoke Chandani & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.2151 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3702 of 1999)
Judges: A.P. MISRA & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 16, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 21, Rule 97 – Bar – Suit by ‘P’ – Suit filed after initiation of execution proceedings – ‘P’, not a party to decree – If suit maintainable. Held that in view of Shreeram’s case, suit was not maintainable. Appeal dismissed. (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Shreeram & Anr. v. Rajesh & Ors. (1989 (4) SCC 543)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Substitution allowed.
2. Leave granted .
3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.2.1999 passed by the High Court of Calcutta. The only point raised in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the Appellant who is not party to a decree is maintainable, when execution proceeding in respect of the same property has been initiated under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure or his remedy is going in the said execution proceedings. The High Court came to the conclusion that the suit having been filed after initiation of execution proceedings, the same is not maintainable, hence dismissed the second appeal. The High Court further held that the Appellant is entitled to raise all such lawful subtenancy or any of his right in the execution proceed-ings, under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code. The question raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Shreeram & Anr. v. Rajesh & Ors. (1989 (4) SCC 543), as against the Appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed and the impugned order of the High Court is upheld. Cost on the parties.
1. Substitution allowed.
2. Leave granted .
3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.2.1999 passed by the High Court of Calcutta. The only point raised in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the Appellant who is not party to a decree is maintainable, when execution proceeding in respect of the same property has been initiated under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure or his remedy is going in the said execution proceedings. The High Court came to the conclusion that the suit having been filed after initiation of execution proceedings, the same is not maintainable, hence dismissed the second appeal. The High Court further held that the Appellant is entitled to raise all such lawful subtenancy or any of his right in the execution proceed-ings, under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code. The question raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Shreeram & Anr. v. Rajesh & Ors. (1989 (4) SCC 543), as against the Appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed and the impugned order of the High Court is upheld. Cost on the parties.
