Skip to content


Chillaloor Yerra Musala Reddi Vs. Pathangi Ramaiya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.1010
AppellantChillaloor Yerra Musala Reddi
RespondentPathangi Ramaiya and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 273 - assignment of decree--attachment thereof--execution application by assignee--order to be passed. - .....1908, the decree was attached by the district munsif under the second paragraph of section 273, civil procedure code, act xiv of 1882, and a notice of attachment was sent to the district court requesting that court to abstain from executing the decree until the notice was cancelled by the district munsif. on the 27th march 1908, the execution application came on for orders and was rejected on the ground that the decree could not be executed owing to the attachment thereof by the district munsif. we think this order was right. the terms of the second paragraph of section 273, civil procedure code, act xiv of 1882, are imperative, and the district court had no alternative, but to stay execution and refuse to grant the appellant's application. we have been referred to the judgment in.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the decree was transferred to the appellant on the 21st February 1908 and on the 24th February 1908, the appellant applied for execution in the District Court. On the 14th March 1908, the decree was attached by the District Munsif under the second paragraph of Section 273, Civil Procedure Code, Act XIV of 1882, and a notice of attachment was sent to the District Court requesting that Court to abstain from executing the decree until the notice was cancelled by the District Munsif. On the 27th March 1908, the execution application came on for orders and was rejected on the ground that the decree could not be executed owing to the attachment thereof by the District Munsif. We think this order was right. The terms of the second paragraph of Section 273, Civil Procedure Code, Act XIV of 1882, are imperative, and the District Court had no alternative, but to stay execution and refuse to grant the appellant's application. We have been referred to the judgment in appeal against Order No. 222 of 1907. In that case no question under the second paragraph of Section 273, Civil Procedure Code, Act XIV of 1882, was raised in the argument, nor, so far as we have been able to ascertain from the papers, could any such question have been raised. The appellant's remedy was to prefer a claim in the District Munsif's Court. This appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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