Skip to content


Aziz Bux Vs. Kaniz Fatima Bibi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.49
AppellantAziz Bux
RespondentKaniz Fatima Bibi and anr.
Cases ReferredVide Govinda Chandra v. Dwarka
Excerpt:
execution - attachment--execution application dismissed on objection--review of the dismissal order--attachment, whether subsists pending the review--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rule 57. - interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute. - in this order there was clearly an error as some of the property attached was not mortgaged property. 8. stress is laid on order xxi, rule 57. the rule clearly does not apply......was not so mortgaged. both sets of property were attached. the judgment-debtor objected that the mortgaged property could not be sold in execution without a suit being brought on the mortgage.3. the first court disallowed the objection, an appeal was preferred by the judgment-debtor to this court, a bench of which on 2nd june 1909 upheld the objection and passed a decree dismissing the application for execution in toto. in this order there was clearly an error as some of the property attached was not mortgaged property.4. accordingly, on 10th august 1909, the decree-holder applied for review of the judgment of 2nd june 1909. the application was granted and this court on 13th june 1910 passed a modified order dismissing the application for execution only in respect to the mortgaged.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor from an order passed in execution proceedings.

2. The person seeking to execute the decree is the assignee of a simple money-decree which was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut. The assignee of the decree attached two lots of property, (1) property which was burdened with a mortgage in favour of her assignor, (2) property which was not so mortgaged. Both sets of property were attached. The judgment-debtor objected that the mortgaged property could not be sold in execution without a suit being brought on the mortgage.

3. The first Court disallowed the objection, an appeal was preferred by the judgment-debtor to this Court, a Bench of which on 2nd June 1909 upheld the objection and passed a decree dismissing the application for execution in toto. In this order there was clearly an error as some of the property attached was not mortgaged property.

4. Accordingly, on 10th August 1909, the decree-holder applied for review of the judgment of 2nd June 1909. The application was granted and this Court on 13th June 1910 passed a modified order dismissing the application for execution only in respect to the mortgaged property and remitting the record to the lower Court with orders to continue with the execution of the decree according to law in regard to the rest of the property. In the meantime, the lower Court, on receipt of the decree of 2nd June 1909, had, on 18th August 1909, sent the record into the record room.

5. While the application for review was pending, i e., between August 10th, 1909, and June 13th, 1910, the judgment-debtor sold the non-mortgaged property to a third party.

6. After the decision of 13th June 1910, the decree-holder applied to the lower Court on the basis of this Court's order of that date to go on with the execution proceedings and to sell the attached (non-mortgaged) property. The judgment-debtor (not his transferee) objected, pleading that under Order XXI, Rule 57, the previous attachment had ceased to exist and that a fresh attachment was necessary and the property could not be sold as he had already sold it to another person.

7. The lower Court rejected the objection and hence this appeal by the judgment-debtor.

8. Stress is laid on Order XXI, Rule 57. The rule clearly does not apply. It relates to the case of a default by the decree-holder which prevents the Court from continuing the execution proceedings and results in a dismissal of the application for execution by reason of that default. In such a case the rule lays down that the attachment ceases to exist directly the order of dismissal is passed. The rule allows the Court on the occurence of such default to either dismiss the application or adjourn the proceedings and adds that if the application be dismissed, the attachment ceases at once.

9. In the present case there was no default. Nor after such a dismissal would the revival of the execution proceedings cause a revival of the attachment, at least so as to prejudice the rights of strangers who have in the meantime acquired a title to the property vide Patringa Koer v. Madhabanand Ram 14 C.L.J. 476 : 12 Ind. Cas. 65 : 16 C.W.N. 332. This latter case does not help the appellant who is himself the judgment-debtor, nor is the case reported in Sasirama Kumari v. Meherban Khan 13 C.L.J. 243 : 9 Ind. Cas. 918 of any assistance for in that case there was a clear specific order releasing the property from attachment.

10. Prior to the Code of Civil Procedure now in force, there was often considerable doubt whether an attachment came to an end on the passing of an order dismissing an application for execution by reason of the decree-holder's default. Vide Govinda Chandra v. Dwarka hath 33 C. 666. This has now been set at rest by Order XXI, Rule 67. But in the present case, there was no such order of dismissal for default. The first order of dismissal passed by this Court on appeal on 2nd June 1909 was set aside on review and the order finally passed on the appeal only disallowed the application for execution in so far as it related to the mortgaged property, and Upholding the application in regard to the property now in question and ordering the lower Court to go on with the execution of the decree in respect thereto.

11. In regard to this property, there has, therefore, been no dismissal of the application for execution. The lower Court's order of 18th August 1909 consigning the record to the record room does not and cannot help the appellant. He made the transfer while the application for review was pending. We would point out that his transferee has not come into Court.

12. We hold that, in the circumstances of this case, the attachment of the property in question at no time came to an end and we, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs which in this Court include fees on the higher scale.


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