9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Executability of the decree challenged under Section 47 of CPC. 2. Jurisdiction of the court to decide on issues not raised in the application. 3. Violation of natural justice in deciding the issue without proper hearing. 4. Remittance of the matter back to the lower court for further proceedings. Analysis: 1. The revision-petitioner, as the decree-holder, filed an execution proceeding in the Subordinate Judge's Court for enforcement of the decree passed in O.S. No. 289 of 1980-1. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator, whose award was made rule of the court. The judgment-debtor challenged the executability of the decree under Section 47 of the CPC, leading to a series of appeals and counter-appeals up to the Supreme Court, resulting in dismissal of the civil appeal in 1999. 2. The judgment-debtor, in the execution proceeding, raised a challenge regarding the executability of the decree, focusing on the decree-holder's failure to deposit the required amount as per the decree. The court, while addressing this issue, faced arguments on whether it had the jurisdiction to decide on matters not explicitly raised in the application under Section 47 of the CPC. The judgment-debtor's counsel contended that the court could still address such issues if they came to notice during proceedings. 3. The court acknowledged the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring both parties have the opportunity to present their case adequately. It noted that deciding on issues not raised without affording the decree-holder a chance to respond could violate these principles. Consequently, the court decided to remit the matter back to the lower court for a proper hearing and disposal of the application under Section 47 of the CPC and related execution matters. 4. Given the prolonged nature of the litigation and to expedite the resolution, the court directed the executing court to resolve the issue within four months. It also allowed both parties to amend their applications within six weeks and scheduled a hearing date for both parties to appear. The court emphasized that no further notices would be issued, and non-appearance on the specified date would be considered default. Additionally, instructions were given to send the Lower Court Record (L.C.R.) back promptly for further proceedings.
|
