Skip to content


Bishunath Vs. Munna Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All326
AppellantBishunath
RespondentMunna Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
.....the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - this is clearly not a suit for compensation for illegal attachment but a suit to recover a sum of money received by the defendant which belongs to the plaintiffs......the present suit is to recover that sum of money on the ground that it was improperly attached and drawn out and that it really belongs to the plaintiffs by whom it was deposited. this is clearly not a suit for compensation for illegal attachment but a suit to recover a sum of money received by the defendant which belongs to the plaintiffs. as such the suit was properly brought in the small cause court and i accordingly dismiss this application with costs.
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. The only point for decision in this revision is whether the suit is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has decided that it was not. The applicant relies on Article 35(j) of the Second Schedule treating the suit as one for compensation for illegal attachment, The opposite party attached a certain sum of money which was deposited in Court and drew it out of Court. The present suit is to recover that sum of money on the ground that it was improperly attached and drawn out and that it really belongs to the plaintiffs by whom it was deposited. This is clearly not a suit for compensation for illegal attachment but a suit to recover a sum of money received by the defendant which belongs to the plaintiffs. As such the suit was properly brought in the Small Cause Court and I accordingly dismiss this application with costs.


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