Skip to content


Ko Tho HnyIn Vs. Ma HnIn I. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1911)13BOMLR694
AppellantKo Tho Hnyin
RespondentMa HnIn I.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
appeal-civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882)-decree-holder-sale in execution of decree-order refusing decree-holder permission to bid.;no appeal lies from an order refusing to give a decree-holder permission to purchase at a sale held in execution of a decree.;jodoonath mundul v.brojo mohun ghose (1886) i.l.r. 13 cal. 174 aproved. - .....was expressly decided at calcutta jodoonath mundul v.brojo mohun ghose ilr (1886) cal. 174 in the year 1886, and there is no authority impugning that decision. the point was raised there, and it was decided by the high court that no appeal lies 'from an order refusing to give a decree holder permission to purchase at a sale held in execution of a decree.'3. their lordships will therefore humbly advise his majesty that this appeal ought to be dismissed. there is no appearance by the respondent so that there will be no order as to ' costs.
Judgment:

Macnaghten, J.

1. Their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment under appeal is right. If the appellant had applied for leave to appeal, and his application had been refused, there could not have been any appeal. It is a matter of administration.

2. The point was expressly decided at Calcutta Jodoonath Mundul v.Brojo Mohun Ghose ILR (1886) Cal. 174 in the year 1886, and there is no authority impugning that decision. The point was raised there, and it was decided by the High Court that no appeal lies 'from an order refusing to give a decree holder permission to purchase at a sale held in execution of a decree.'

3. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal ought to be dismissed. There is no appearance by the respondent so that there will be no order as to ' costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //