Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: S.115 CPC:Suit for damages on malicious prosecution

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, Rr.30, 40, 47 & 59---Suit for specificperformance of agreement to sell vehicle---Plaintiff claimed recovery of balance sale price ofvehicle from defendant-vendee and his surety---Ex parte decree passed against defendant and hissurety for recovery of such balance price, while restraining Excise and Taxation Authority fromtransferring vehicle from name of decree-holder to any body else---Execution proceedings---Custody of vehicle taken by Police in compliance of order of Executing Court---Custody ofvehicle later on restored by Executing Court to intervener on superdagi after dismissing hisapplication claiming to be its bona fide purchaser---Validity---Vehicle was not subject-matter ofsuit except its balance sale price---Trial Court while decreeing suit had not ordered for specificperformance of agreement, rather had passed decree for recovery of balance sale price---Decreehad not restrained sale and purchase of vehicle---Executing Court had not adopted properprocedure laid down in O.XXI, R.30, C.P.C. for execution of money decree---Duty of ExecutingCourt might attach and sell property owned by judgment-debtors or arrest them---Vehicle thoughexisted in decree-holder's name, but had been recovered from possession of intervener, who was neither judgment-debtor nor alleged to be in its possession on behalf of judgment-debtors---Executing Court had taken custody of vehicle in absence of order of its attachment---Taking overpossession of vehicle by Police would neither serve the purpose nor of any legal effect noramount to an order for its attachment---Executing Court had rightly restored possession ofvehicle to the intervener---Decree-holder could pursue his execution application within terms ofdecree in which same was passed---High Court disposed of both appeals filed by decree-holderand intervener in above terms.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 51, O. XXI, Rr.10 & 11---Execution of decree---Powers of Executing Court---Scope---Executing Court could not go beyond decree, rather would have to remain within its ambit, adoptprocedure prescribed under law and satisfy same in terms in which same was passed.(c) Administration of justice-------No order could be made in contravention of law and prescribed procedure.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.