JUDGMENT
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.
