ASMA LATEEF & ANRversusSHABBIR AHMAD & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9695/2013
Decision Date: 12-01-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC36

English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments. 
						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.
						 ASMA LATEEF & ANR versus SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 5172024 INSC 36 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, DIPANKAR DATTA, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the order dated 05.08.1991 (vide which application u/ rr.5 and 10 of Or.VIII, CPC was allowed by the Trial Court for pronouncement of judgment against defendant no.2 in the suit) suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently by the Executing Court and an objection that it is inexecutable was available to be raised u/s. 47, CPC by the respondents 1 to 3. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – rr. 5, 10 of Or. VIII and s.47 – Respondents 1 to 3 had filed an objection u/s. 47 of the CPC in an 

Summary: Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.ASMA LATEEF & ANRversusSHABBIR AHMAD & ORS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 5172024 INSC 36Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, DIPANKAR DATTA, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the order dated 05.08.1991 (vide which application u/ rr.5 and 10 of Or.VIII, CPC was allowed by the Trial Court for pronouncement of judgment against defendant no.2 in the suit) suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently by the Executing Court and an objection that it is inexecutable was available to be raised u/s. 47, CPC by the respondents 1 to 3. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – rr. 5, 10 of Or. VIII and s.47 – Respondents 1 to 3 had filed an objection u/s. 47 of the CPC in an