1992 (1) TMI 339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elow has wrongly refused to fix instalments in the present case of execution of the decree which power it has under Order 20, Rule 11(2), Civil Procedure Code. The argument is that there was no objection by the decree-holder and, therefore, the court below had to fix the instalments. I am not inclined to accept this argument. Under Order 20, Rule 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the consent of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The case is no authority for the proposition raised in the present case. Learned counsel for the revisionist also relied upon B. Tata Charlu v. Konadala Ramachandara Reddi [1883] ILR 7 Mad 153. In that case, Section 210 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1877, came up for interpretation which was a provision similar to Order 20, Rule 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The interpretation which was given .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X