Skip to content


PulIn Chandra Chattapadhya Vs. Khetra Mohan Ghose - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Cal748
AppellantPulIn Chandra Chattapadhya
RespondentKhetra Mohan Ghose
Cases ReferredMaganlal Pitambar Das v. Dahyabhai Chhaganlal
Excerpt:
- .....be regarded as security for the performance of the decree because with the setting aside of the ex parte decree the attachment would come to an end. it appears however from the clear language of section 17, provincial small cause courts act, that the purpose for which security baa to be furnished is to ensure the performance of the ex parte decree in case that decree is not set aside. i do not think it is possible to hold from the language of the section that it was the intention of the legislature that the security to be furnished was for the performance of the ultimate decree that might be passed in the event of the ex parte decree being set aside. this was the view which was accepted by the bombay high court in maganlal pitambar das v. dahyabhai chhaganlal (1938) 25 a.i.r. bom. 448.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Edgley, J.

1. From the record in this case it appears that the Court accepted as sufficient security under Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, some property which was under attachment. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that security such as this could not be regarded as security for the performance of the decree because with the setting aside of the ex parte decree the attachment would come to an end. It appears however from the clear language of Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, that the purpose for which security baa to be furnished is to ensure the performance of the ex parte decree in case that decree is not set aside. I do not think it is possible to hold from the language of the Section that it was the intention of the Legislature that the security to be furnished was for the performance of the ultimate decree that might be passed in the event of the ex parte decree being set aside. This was the view which was accepted by the Bombay High Court in Maganlal Pitambar Das v. Dahyabhai Chhaganlal (1938) 25 A.I.R. Bom. 448 and in my opinion the interpretation placed on Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, in that case is correct. Having regard to the considerations mentioned above, this Rule must be discharged with costs. The hearing-fee is assessed at one gold mohur.


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