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

....xecution case. 2. Heard counsel for revisionist. Learned counsel argued that the court below 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 acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the court granted instalments as the judgment-debtor was being deprived of his livelihood. 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 simi....