CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramu and Others vs Jai Singh

Delhi High Court · Decided on 7 January 1999 · Citation: (1999) 78 DLT 1

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mukul Mudgal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 26, Order 21 Rule 58, 47
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal No. 314 of 1984
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 185 words

Mukul Mudgal, J.—The case was called out and, none appears for any of the parties. Since the revision petition is of the year 1985, it is being taken up today.

2.

This revision petition arises from a decree passed by the Civil Judge, Deoria, UP and transferred to Delhi for execution. The petitioner therein filed objections under Order XXI Rules 26 and 58 read with Section 437, CPC against the attachment order obtained during the execution of the decree. The plea raised by the petitioner was that the decree was unexecutable against the petitioner. The Appellate Court by its order dated 27.3.1984 has held that the transferee Court in execution is not competent to go beyond the decree. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the revision. It has been contended inter alias by the petitioner in the revision petition that the decree obtained by respondent is by fraud. If this be the case petitioner may have a remedy to file an appropriate suit for declaration. This has not been done. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated.