S. RAJESWARI versus S.N. KULASEKARAN AND ORS.

S. RAJESWARI versus S.N. KULASEKARAN AND ORS.

A revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against an order passed by the executing court in proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97, as such order is treated as a decree, and only an appeal lies as per Order XXI Rule 103 and Section 115(2) CPC. The High Court erred in entertaining the revision petition.

Parties
Appellant: S. Rajeswari; Respondent No. 1: S.N. Kulasekaran
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside.
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Obstruction to Possession, Jurisdiction of High Court, Appeal Vs Revision
Civil Procedure Execution of Decrees Obstruction to Possession Jurisdiction of High Court Appeal Vs Revision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Rajeswari

Appellant

S.N. Kulasekaran

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against an order passed in execution proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC
  2. 2 Whether the application filed under Section 151 CPC can be treated as one under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

A revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against an order passed by the executing court in proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97, as such order is treated as a decree, and only an appeal lies as per Order XXI Rule 103 and Section 115(2) CPC. The High Court erred in entertaining the revision petition.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside.
  • Liberty left to parties to seek available remedies as per law.