Allahabad High Court noted that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Executing Court was neither doubted nor was referred.
“If this is allowed to happen, every judgment-debtor who is in possession of the immoveable property till the decree is passed, shall hand over possession to a third party to defeat the decree-holder's right and entitlement to enjoy the fruits of litigation and this may continue indefinitely and no decree for immovable property can be executed.”
Supreme Court commented that “The situation is indeed disquieting, viewed from the perspective of the decree holders, but the law, as it stands, has to be given effect whether the court likes the result or not.”
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., expressed that, The Banks seek collaterals and security to prevent losses to themselves. It is, but
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Sindhu Sharma, J. allowed the revision petition on the grounds that the executing court had a duty
Bombay High Court at Goa: C.V. Bhadang, J., discharged the petitioner (proprietor of the defendant Company) of the notice served upon him
Himachal Pradesh High Court: The Bench of Sandeep Sharma, J. hearing a revision petition against an order of District Judge, held that
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Petitioner preferred this civil revision before a Single Judge Bench of Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J., under Section 115