Skip to content


Pramatha Nath Malia Vs. H.V. Low and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931Cal174
AppellantPramatha Nath Malia
RespondentH.V. Low and Co.
Cases ReferredJuggodumba v. Puddomoney
Excerpt:
- .....execute the decree and 'at their option to have the said colliery which is hereby charged sold in execution of the decree made in this suit.'2. on 5th january 1929 the plaintiff-company made an application to this court for execution of the decree and for an order for sale by the registrar, but on the application being heard the court was asked to appoint a receiver with liberty to sell the property. the learned judge so ordered and against his order an appeal, which was dismissed on 17th july 1929, was preferred. the defendant now applies for leave to appeal to his majesty in council and for the necessary certificate to be granted.3. the only question involved in these proceedings is whether the sale of the properties should be held under the order of this court or under the order of.....
Judgment:

Buckland, J.

1. By a consent decree made on 25th August 1925 a sum of four lakhs of rupees with interest payable by instalments was ordered to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff company. The decree provided that the decretal amount should be secured by a first charge upon the Chalbulpore Colliery with all fittings and fixtures, and that in default of payment of any instalment the plaintiffs should be entitled to execute the decree and 'at their option to have the said colliery which is hereby charged sold in execution of the decree made in this suit.'

2. On 5th January 1929 the plaintiff-company made an application to this Court for execution of the decree and for an order for sale by the Registrar, but on the application being heard the Court was asked to appoint a receiver with liberty to sell the property. The learned Judge so ordered and against his order an appeal, which was dismissed on 17th July 1929, was preferred. The defendant now applies for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and for the necessary certificate to be granted.

3. The only question involved in these proceedings is whether the sale of the properties should be held under the order of this Court or under the order of the local Court. It has been contended that the order of this Court was made without jurisdiction, but the power of this Court, in appropriate cases, to appoint a receiver and to direct him to sell property in the mufassil is not challenged and indeed such a view, for which one of the earliest authorities is Juggodumba v. Puddomoney [1875] 15 B. L.R. 318 has been acted upon for many years.

4. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is based upon a narrow construction of the clause in the consent decree the object of which, so far as it relates to execution, was to avoid the necessity of a separate suit for the purpose of enforcing the charge which it declares.

5. In these circumstances there are no grounds for holding that a substantial question of law is involved such as Section 110, Civil P. C, requires, before a certificate can be granted. The fact that the order of this. Court on appeal added certain directions to the receiver which are not complained of does not take the case out of the last clause of Section 110 of the Code, nor indeed has this been contended be fore us.

6. The application must be dismissed with costs.

Rankin, C.J.

7. I agree.


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