Live
- Police Detained Mohan Babu's Manager Kiran
- Facial Recognition Attendance Mandatory for Secretariat Employees from Tomorrow
- Upendra’s ‘UI: The Movie’ clears censor; Set for Dec 20 release
- Official: Balakrishna’s ‘Akhanda 2’ locks release date
- Indian Researchers Uncover Key Insights into the Sun's Corona with Aditya-L1
- Brunei sultan urges united efforts from energy companies to face future challenges
- Student Ends Life After Being Scolded by Parents
- Telecom operators geared up to block spammy telemarketer messages from Wednesday
- Mohan Babu should immediately issue a public apology: Press Club President Balavardhan
- Strict Protocols Set for Group 2 Exams in Wanaparthy District
HC upholds the rights of third parties
Justice Vilas Afzalpurkar of the High Court at Hyderabad upheld the rights of third parties and pointed out how even a stranger needs be heard in the course of executing a decree. The judge was dealing with a petition filed by a third party. In the suit the defendants were directed to hand over the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendants were also restrained from making any constructions on the property.
Hyderabad: Justice Vilas Afzalpurkar of the High Court at Hyderabad upheld the rights of third parties and pointed out how even a stranger needs be heard in the course of executing a decree. The judge was dealing with a petition filed by a third party. In the suit the defendants were directed to hand over the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendants were also restrained from making any constructions on the property.
At this stage the petitioner moved the court contending that he did not even know of the lis on hand and came to know about it only when the decree holder came to the suit property with a proclaimer. While he was a bonafide purchaser of the property, Justice Vilas Afzalpurkar pointed out that the code required the court to proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions contained in the code.
He said that it is obvious that after such adjudication if it is found that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without just cause by the judgement debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf the such obstruction or resistance would be removed as per Order XXI. The judge also pointed out that it would be obviously unfair and unjust if the Executing Court can tell such obstructionist that he must first lose possession and then only his remedy is to move an application and pray for restoration of possession.
