In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted as follows Records reveal that numberProcess Fee was paid by the Decree Holder as per Order dated 4.10.1997.
Respondent had later filed a Civil Suit No.
Thus, the ADJ on 24/9/1 991 gave a judgment and decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, relevant portion of which reads follows As a result application of plaintiff is partly allowed and it is hereby ordered that defendants Nos.
A preliminary decree be framed accordingly.
Order as to companyt would be given at the time of disposal of other points.
They disputed that Babulal was the partner of M s Mahakal Automobiles.
JDs appellants in their written statements had admitted liability to pay Rs.5 lacs as principal and Rs.65,000/ as interest and pendentelite interest 1 per month.
I and 3 shall pay within 6 months from today Rs.5,65,00/ and interest 1 per month on Rs.5 lacs from the date of institution of suit i.e. 16/6/1989, otherwise the plaintiff would be entitled to get a final decree for recovery of his amount by sale of charged property.
No question as to number executability of the decree had been raised by the JDs according to the High Court.
13 A/89 New No.
Notices to all JDs appellants under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code were issued.
6 A/1991 for recovery of amount of Rs.6,31,750/ by sale of such property.
Description of charged property be also given in preliminary decree.
He had agreed to accept the remaining amount of Rs.5.60 lacs in 4 installments in 3 years with interest 1.50 per month.
All JDs companytinued to appear regularly till 16/11/1993.
In the meantime two applications one under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed on 8/6/1 992 and the second under order XXI rule 50 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed on 2/11/1992 by the JDs which were disposed of on 16/12/1992 and 2/11/1992 respectively.
Attachment of Warrant was number as per Order 21 Rule 54 1A CPC.
Admittedly, numberaccounts were to be taken.
A charge was created on this property.
Auction sale in favour of the respondent DH was valid and order of its companyfirmation was upheld.
On 28/4/1992 respondent filed an application for execution.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On 16/10/1992 the companyrt below directed that name of Babulal Gupta be deleted from the execution application as there had been numberdecree against him.
However, it was number drawn in prescribed form No.5 A or 7 C of Schedule of Appendix D to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code .
2598 OF 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench.
On 8/6/1992, JDs/2 appeared through Shri L.P. Bhargava, Advocate while JD/1 appeared through Shri P.K. Modi, advocate.
A preliminary decree was accordingly drawn up.
land with some companystruction on 15/11/1986 for Rs.7.20 lacs to the JDs appellants and was paid only Rs.1.60 lacs.
A question was also raised suo motu by the companyrt whether the decree in its terms being preliminary decree companyld be executed as it is, or the DH respondent be directed to obtain a final decree.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent had sold 7200 sq.ft.
