Judgments - Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. LRs. Versus Baldev Raj Walia & Anr.
JAIDEEP MOHAN Vs. HUB INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES & ANR
M/s Rajsai Traders & others Versus Vinod
Law laid down - After the stage of Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) of the CPC, first stage is to seek leave from the Court under Rule 5 and if the said leave is granted permitting the defendants to defend unconditionally or on such terms as appear to be just, sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the CPC would attract “at the hearing of such summons for judgment”. In case leave not applied or refused at the stage of Full Judgment
M/s Shriram Builders Vs. State of M.P. & others
Kamal Singh & Ors. Versus Bhav singh Rajpoot & Ors.
Padam Singh and others Vs. Radhelal and others
Law laid down - Order 21 Rule 97 CPC 1. A person raising objection must show some prima-facie pleadings and material in his objection which makes it adjudicatable. 2. Executing Court is duty bound to examine the availability of bonafide adjudicatory material. 3. The adjudication mentioned in this provision need not essentially involved a detailed enquiry or collection of evidence. The Court can undertake the exercise of adjudication even on the allegations made by the obstructor. 4. In absence of minimum essential prima-facie pleadings Full Judgment
Sitaram Appellant (s) VERSUS Radhey Shyam Vishnav & Ors.
Surat Singh (Dead) VERSUS Siri Bhagwan & Ors.
SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED versus ABDUL SAMAD & ANR.
Durga Education Society Versus M/s Shakti Pictures Circuit Ltd.
Bhanu Shankar Raikwar Versus Vijay Shankar Raikwar and others
Law laid down - The principle of res judicata would apply to execution proceedings as they are continuation of a suit. If a judgment-debtor fails to raise an objection which he might and ought to have raised, the Court passing the decree for execution of the decree must be deemed to have decided the objection. Full Judgment
M/S NEERJA REALTORS PVT LTD VERSUS JANGLU (DEAD) THR. LR.
SUNIL KUMAR Vs. SURENDER KUMAR & ANR
Kanaklata Das & Ors. VERSUS Naba Kumar Das & Ors.
Shiv Pratap Singh Tomar Vs. Smt. Seema Tomar and Others
Law laid down - (I) A defendant may cross-examine a co-defendant or any other witness who has given evidence against him, and reply on such evidence though there is no issue joined between them. (II) Once it is demonstrated by a defendant that his interest is not common and there is a conflict of interest affecting the interest of co-defendant then the defendant can cross-examine the witnesses of co-defendant for reaching to the truth. (III) Condition precedent for giving an opportunity to a Full Judgment