Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 2227, 2005 AIR SCW 2171, 2005 (59) ALL LR 609.1, 2005 (4) SCALE 116, 2005 (2) ALL CJ 1097.1, 2005 (2) ALL WC 1355.1, 2005 (3) SCC 734, (2005) 29 ALLINDCAS 27 (SC), 2005 (6) SRJ 202, 2005 (3) SLT 699, (2005) 2 ALLMR 535 (SC), (2005) 2 JCR 248.1 (SC), (2005) 3 CTC 143 (SC), (2005) 4 MAD LW 346, (2005) 99 REVDEC 232, (2005) 4 SCALE 116, (2005) 3 KCCR 1833, (2005) 59 ALL LR 609(1), (2005) 2 CURCC 161, (2005) 3 SCJ 439, (2005) 3 SUPREME 412, (2005) 100 CUT LT 439, (2005) 2 ALL WC 1355(1)
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: B.P. Singh, S.B. Sinha
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3058 of 2000
PETITIONER:
Swamy Atmananda
RESPONDENT:
Swami Bodhananda and Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/2005
BENCH:
B.P. Singh & S.B. Sinha
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.10.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.15089 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by Swami Bodhananda had been allowed. The said writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents therein to give all assistance to the Appellant in taking over management of the institutions specified therein. The said writ petition was filed having regard to the judgment of the Civil Court.
A decree passed by the Civil Court must be executed in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petition is not the appropriate remedy therefor. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. It, however, goes without saying that the First Respondent herein shall be entitled to execute the decree in accordance with law.