Skip to content


Mt. Rajeshwari Bibi and ors. Vs. B. Hari Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933All751; 145Ind.Cas.444
AppellantMt. Rajeshwari Bibi and ors.
RespondentB. Hari Ram
Excerpt:
- .....execution against sat narain prasad. the applicants, who are his nephews and the nephew's mother, filed objections under order 21, rule 58, civil p.c., to the attachment of certain property. the attachment took place on 17th october 1932, and the objections were filed on 11th november 1932. it however appears that the next date fixed for attachment was 25th october 1932, but that apparently was for the return of notices and the date for hearing fixed was 11th november 1932, on which date the objections were actually filed.2. the learned additional subordinate judge, without hearing the applicants or their counsel, through whom the objections were filed, and without asking for an explanation as to the apparent delay, dismissed the objections in chambers summarily on the ground that they.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, C.J.

1. This is an application in revision from an order, dated 12th November 1932 passed by an Additional Subordinate Judge of Allahabad, dismissing the applicants' objection under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. There was a simple money decree in execution against Sat Narain Prasad. The applicants, who are his nephews and the nephew's mother, filed objections under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., to the attachment of certain property. The attachment took place on 17th October 1932, and the objections were filed on 11th November 1932. It however appears that the next date fixed for attachment was 25th October 1932, but that apparently was for the return of notices and the date for hearing fixed was 11th November 1932, on which date the objections were actually filed.

2. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, without hearing the applicants or their counsel, through whom the objections were filed, and without asking for an explanation as to the apparent delay, dismissed the objections in chambers summarily on the ground that they had been unnecessarily delayed. No doubt, there is a proviso to Order 21, Rule 58, under which no investigation shall be made where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. The conclusion of the Court that there was such an unnecessary delay would not be open to revision by the High Court. But it seems to us that a Court cannot come to the conclusion whether there has been an unnecessary delay without considering any explanation that might be offered on behalf of the objector. This cannot be known until the objector or his counsel has been heard and given an opportunity to explain the delay. We are of opinion that, in the absence of any opportunity having been given to the objectors or their counsel to explain the delay, the Court below acted with material irregularity in dismissing the objections summarily on the supposed ground that there was an unnecessary delay. We accordingly allow this decision, set aside the order of the Court below and send the case back to the Court below to determine, after hearing the parties, whether there was any unnecessary delay or not, and if none, then to dispose of the objections on the merits. The costs will abide the event.


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