{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for postponement or suspension of sale in execution under Order 40 rule 348A(5e)","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant's residence claim, hardship allegation, settlement offer"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant would suffer \"great hardship\" if the dwelling were sold","issue_type":"factual","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant's residence situation, property value vs debt, alternative accommodation"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant's settlement offer was reasonable","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Previous payment failures, undisclosed income, offer terms"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant, a self-actor, sought to suspend the sale in execution of his dwelling house to satisfy a judgment debt of US$11,326. He claimed to occupy the property with his family and offered to pay US$500 monthly from November 2017. The first respondent opposed, alleging the applicant did not reside at the property and had failed to honour previous payment commitments.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases