Skip to content


Mandhyan Sheikiya Vs. Badram Dalni - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.441
AppellantMandhyan Sheikiya
RespondentBadram Dalni
Excerpt:
execution of decree - limitation--'struck off,' meaning of, whether amounts to dismissal--civil procedure cod (act 7 of 1908), section 48, order xxi, rule 57. - .....should be issued, the 15th of april being fixed for the date of the proclamation. on the 15th april, the proclamation not having been made, an order was passed proclamation not filed, struck off.' in our opinion and under the circumstances of this case, this amounted to a dismissal of the attachment and if any further attachment proceedings were to be taken out, they would have to be taken before the 15th april 1909. no further proceedings were attempted until the 13th august 1909 when fresh proceedings for attachment were commenced. these further proceedings were out of time and, consequently, were infructuous.2. the result is that the order of the 16th february 1910, which by some oversight has cot been supplied to us, but which, (sic) understand, was a fresh application for.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Assam Valley District. A decree was passed on the 16th April 1897. On the 22nd February 1909, execution was commenced and it was ordered that the land should be attached and proclamation should be issued, the 15th of April being fixed for the date of the proclamation. On the 15th April, the proclamation not having been made, an order was passed proclamation not filed, struck off.' In our opinion and under the circumstances of this case, this amounted to a dismissal of the attachment and if any further attachment proceedings were to be taken out, they would have to be taken before the 15th April 1909. No further proceedings were attempted until the 13th August 1909 when fresh proceedings for attachment were commenced. These further proceedings were out of time and, consequently, were infructuous.

2. The result is that the order of the 16th February 1910, which by some oversight has cot been supplied to us, but which, (sic) understand, was a fresh application for execution, was out of time, and the order of the lower Appellate Court was, consequently, right.

3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs, the hearing-fee being assessed at two gold mohurs.


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