M/s The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd, Mudis Rep. Group Manager vs Nazar — 12/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section UO21R1(2). Status: Counter. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
EP - Execution Petition
CNR: TNCB150003892022
Next Hearing
28th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
53/2022
Filing Date
28-10-2022
Registration No
12/2022
Registration Date
28-10-2022
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Valparai
Judge
1-DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/s The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd, Mudis Rep. Group Manager
Adv. T.Paulpandi, B.A.,B.L.,Ms.No.658/1994
Respondent(s)
Nazar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Counter
Counter
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Counter | |
| 30-03-2026 | Counter | |
| 24-03-2026 | Enquiry | |
| 10-03-2026 | Enquiry | |
| 26-02-2026 | Enquiry |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The petition (EA.No.02/2025 in EP.No.12/2022) was dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC for obtaining a stay of execution, as she did not approach either the trial court or appellate court seeking stay of execution proceedings. The court held that Order 21 Rule 26 provides only limited and temporary stay to enable the judgment-debtor to approach the appropriate forum for relief, not indefinite protection. The petitioner was directed to pursue her remedy before the trial court or by filing an appeal before the appellate court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The petition (EA.No.02/2025 in EP.No.12/2022) was dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC for obtaining a stay of execution, as she did not approach either the trial court or appellate court seeking stay of execution proceedings. The court held that Order 21 Rule 26 provides only limited and temporary stay to enable the judgment-debtor to approach the appropriate forum for relief, not indefinite protection. The petitioner was directed to pursue her remedy before the trial court or by filing an appeal before the appellate court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts