Skip to content


Mulchand Dagdu Vs. Govind Gopal Kulkarni - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Application No. 61 of 1905
Judge
Reported in(1906)8BOMLR578
AppellantMulchand Dagdu
RespondentGovind Gopal Kulkarni
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882) chapter xix, section 310a -attachment -private sale-court sale-application to set aside court sale.;section 310 a of the civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882) is applicable to a purchaser subsequent to attachment and prior to sale under that attachment.;where there has been a subsequent sale following on the attachment a person answering this description is one whose immoveable property has been sold under chapter xix of the code. - - 4. in deciding otherwise the learned judge has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which was vested in him......section 310a of the civil procedure code was not applicable to a purchaser subsequent to attachment and prior to sale under that attachment.3. in our opinion, where there has been a subsequent sale following on the attachment, a person answering this description is one whose immoveable property has been sold under the chapter.4. in deciding otherwise the learned judge has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which was vested in him.5. the decision of the learned judge that the parties should determine the matters at issue between them in a suit under section 310a is, in our opinion, erroneous.6. the rule is, therefore, made absolute; and the case must be sent back to the subordinate court for determination in the light of these remarks.7. costs will follow the result.
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.

1. This is an application to us under Section 122 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The only question is whether the Subordinate Judge has committed an error within the scope of that section in holding that Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable to a purchaser subsequent to attachment and prior to sale under that attachment.

3. In our opinion, where there has been a subsequent sale following on the attachment, a person answering this description is one whose immoveable property has been sold under the Chapter.

4. In deciding otherwise the learned Judge has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which was vested in him.

5. The decision of the learned Judge that the parties should determine the matters at issue between them in a suit under Section 310A is, in our opinion, erroneous.

6. The rule is, therefore, made absolute; and the case must be sent back to the Subordinate Court for determination in the light of these remarks.

7. Costs will follow the result.


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