L BEHU MAL Vs. MURLI DHAR
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
Raghubar Dayal, J. -
(1.) Behu Mal and others had a decree against Roop Chand and Mehar Chand. In execution of this, decree certain property was attached. Murli Dhar filed a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, C. P. C., against the attachment of that property. His claim was dismissed in default on 15-4-1944.
(2.) Murli Dhar filed an application under Section 151, C. P. C. on 11-5-1944, for the setting aside of the dismissal order. This application was dismissed on 15-9-1945.
(3.) Murli Dhar then filed a regular suit on 2-8-1946. The decree-holders objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, it being urged that in view of Order 21, Rule 63, C. P. C., the suit should have been instituted within a year of the dismissal of the claim under Order 21, Rule 58, C. P. C. This objection was upheld by the trial court and the suit was dismissed. On appeal the appellate Court did not agree with this objection and remanded the suit for further progress. It is against this order that Bchu Mal, one of the decree-holders who had attached the pro-perty in suit in execution, has filed this appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.