1984 (3) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd confirmed on May 6, 1980, in Money Execution Case No. 2 of 1978, in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge, Alipore, in respect of the suit property was null and void. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, assigning, encumbering and/or changing the nature and character of the suit property and from disturbing the enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and from disconnecting electric supply, water supply, etc. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the auction sale and to act on it in any form and from proceeding with Money Execution Case No. 3 of 1980, of the Court of the First Subor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sdiction to issue any process against the suit property in execution of a decree for payment of money. The auction sale was thus void and as such the plaintiff's right to the property remained intact and he was entitled to retain possession of the game. In support of his argument, the learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the cases of (1) Sriniwas Pandit v. S. Jagjeet Singh Sawhney [1976] 104 ITR 20 (Delhi); (2) Inayat Hussain v. Union of India [1980] 122 ITR 227 (Bom) and (3) Debabrata Mukherjee v. Kalyan Kumar Roy [1981] 1 CLJ 339. The learned advocate for the opposite parties has argued that the decree was obtained against the plaintiff before the original side of this court in Suit No. 63 of 1976 and the said decree was....