Hira Lal Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana|
|Judge|| Chatterji, J.|
|Cases Referred||Din Muhammad v. Municipal Committee|
punjab municipal act (xx of 1891), section 201 - arrears of rent not recoverable through a magistrate--termination of sapurddar's liability. - sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante..........was set aside first by the magistrate and at all events by this court on the report of the sessions judge on 1st august, 1908, and the goods released. the liability of the petitioner is conditional clearly on the attachment being maintained. he had custody of the property as attached property, i.e., property which the committee could sell for realization of their dues. if the attachment falls through, the petitioner's liability necessarily terminates. it has no independent foundation.2. i am also inclined to agree with the sessions judge that no proceedings under section 201 for attachment can be taken by the committee against the accused. i think din muhammad v. municipal committee; amritsar 23 p.r. 1903 cr. shows that under the section claims of this nature, which are hot for.....
1. The previous proceeding's show that the attachment was set aside first by the Magistrate and at all events by this Court on the report of the Sessions Judge on 1st August, 1908, and the goods released. The liability of the petitioner is Conditional clearly on the attachment being maintained. He had custody of the property as attached property, i.e., property which the Committee could sell for realization of their dues. If the attachment falls through, the petitioner's liability necessarily terminates. It has no independent foundation.
2. I am also inclined to agree with the Sessions Judge that no proceedings under Section 201 for attachment can be taken by the Committee against the accused. I think Din Muhammad v. Municipal Committee; Amritsar 23 P.R. 1903 Cr. shows that under the section claims of this nature, which are hot for any arrears of tax, or fee or for money claimable under the Municipal Act, cannot be realized through the agency of a Magistrate. A fortiori the claim against the petitioner, which can only arise by virtue of an agreement to remain as bailee of property which the Committee had seized in order to recover; certain rents due to them, cannot He so recovered.
3. I set aside the order of the Magistrate directing attachment to issue against the petitioner.