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


Madras High Court
Syed Fathula Saheb vs Munyappa on 13 October, 1882
Equivalent citations: (1883) ILR 6 Mad 98
Author: I A Kernan
Bench: Innes, Kernan


JUDGMENT

Innes and Kernan, JJ.

1. The petitioner put in a claim to property attached in Original Suit 12 of 1877 and an order was passed in his favour releasing the property. The respondent brought a suit to have the property declared to be attachable under his decree, and it appears that two Courts have determined in respondent’s favour. The petitioner has appealed to the High Court and the contention is that the concluding language of Section 283, Civil Procedure Code, precludes the execution of the decree by sale of the property pending the final result. But if this consequence followed upon an order under Section 283, the effect would be that Section 283 would work an exception to the procedure laid down in Section 545. If this had been intended, we think there would have been some special provision to take such cases out of the rule laid down in Section 545.

2. The effect of the decree in the suit is to declare the property attachable and in effect it sets aside, until altered by a decree in appeal, the order passed under Section 280. Although this may not be the final result of the suit, it is, we think, the “result” within the meaning of Section 283.

3. We dismiss the petition with costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.104 seconds.