Skip to content


Nanhoon Vs. Mt. Gendiya and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935All768; 158Ind.Cas.45
AppellantNanhoon
RespondentMt. Gendiya and anr.
Cases Referred and Badri Prasad v. Chokhe Lal
Excerpt:
- .....liability if any could be enforced against the supurddar only by a separate suit and not in the execution department. the only rule of law under which a liabilky can be enforced in the execution department against persons other than the judgment-debtor which might possibly apply is section 145, civil p.c. that deals with enforcement of liability against a surety, and the section lays down the kind of surety in question:(a) for the performance of any decree or any part thereof, or (b) for the restitution of any property taken in execution of a decree or, (c) for the payment of any money, or for the fulfilment of any condition imposed on any person, under an order of the court in any suit or in any proceeding consequent thereon.2. it is clear that the supurddar in. question was not at.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Bennet, J.

1. This is an application in civil revision by one Nanhoon who was a supurddar appointed by an Amin. The amin attached certain crops belonging to a judgment-debtor and the supurddar to whom the crop was entrusted is found to have disobeyed an order of the Court. The Court therefore ordered that the supurddar should pay Rs. 229-10-0 with costs. The objection was taken that the liability if any could be enforced against the supurddar only by a separate suit and not in the execution department. The only rule of law under which a liabilky can be enforced in the execution department against persons other than the judgment-debtor which might possibly apply is Section 145, Civil P.C. That deals with enforcement of liability against a surety, and the section lays down the kind of surety in question:

(a) for the performance of any decree or any part thereof, or (b) for the restitution of any property taken in execution of a decree or, (c) for the payment of any money, or for the fulfilment of any condition imposed on any person, under an order of the Court in any suit or in any proceeding consequent thereon.

2. It is clear that the supurddar in. question was not at all a surety within the meaning of Section 145. He did not undertake any liability for the performance of the decree, nor was he liable as a surety for the restitution of property taken in execution of a decree, nor was he liable for the payment of money, etc. This view has been taken in various rulings such as Jagat Narain v. Nizamuddin 1933 All. 385 and Badri Prasad v. Chokhe Lal 1926 All. 406 . I consider therefore that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to deal with this matter of the liability of the supurddar in execution proceedings. Accordingly 1 allow this application with costs and set the order of the lower Court aside and direct that the money if paid shall be refunded.


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