Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Jagan Nath vs Ganesh And Ors. on 2 June, 1896
Equivalent citations: (1896) ILR 18 All 413
Bench: J Edge, Kt., Blennerhassett


John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blennerhassett, J.

1. The order which is final under Section 283 of Act No. XIV of 1882

is final only as between the parties to the application in which the

order is made and their representatives. An order in favour of a

decree-holder on an objection under Section 278 does not enure for the

benefit of the other decree-holders who are not parties to the

proceedings. The District Judge appears to have thought that a

decree-holder who obtains an order in his favour under these sections

may be treated as representing all the other decree-holders holding

decrees against the judgment-debtor and seeking to sell the same

property. This is not the case of an order having been made in favour

of a decree-holder at a time when several other decree-holders had

obtained attachment of the same property. We say nothing AS to what

might be the effect of the order under Section 280, Section 281, or

Section 282 in favour of one decree-holder so far as the other

decree-holders were concerned who had obtained attachment. This view is

consistent with the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Badri

Prasad v. Muhammad Yusuf I.L.R. 1 All. 381. We set aside the decrees

below and remand this case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil

Procedure to the first Court to be disposed of according to law. Costs

of this appeal and in the Court below will abide the result.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.193 seconds.