<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (5) TMI 292 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298008</link>
    <description>Order 21 CPC permits the executing court to take all ancillary steps needed to deliver effective possession, including removal of unlawful constructions raised pendente lite without leave of court. A decree for possession cannot be defeated by structures put up during the suit, and their demolition may be ordered in execution without a separate suit for mandatory injunction. Persons inducted by the judgment-debtor after the suit and without leave are bound by the decree as claiming through him, and they may be removed in execution without separate impleadment. The execution orders for vacant possession were therefore upheld as lawful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (5) TMI 292 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298008</link>
      <description>Order 21 CPC permits the executing court to take all ancillary steps needed to deliver effective possession, including removal of unlawful constructions raised pendente lite without leave of court. A decree for possession cannot be defeated by structures put up during the suit, and their demolition may be ordered in execution without a separate suit for mandatory injunction. Persons inducted by the judgment-debtor after the suit and without leave are bound by the decree as claiming through him, and they may be removed in execution without separate impleadment. The execution orders for vacant possession were therefore upheld as lawful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>