LEM SANGMA Vs. GANSING SANGMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under R. 35 of the rules framed for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills arising out of an order orally made in execution of a decree passed by the Laskar in the sum of Rs. 300 as compensation for the loss of a boat belonging to the decree holder. No appeal or revision was preferred against the judgment and decree of the Laskar. Upon an oral application for execution of the decree made to the Laskar, the Laskar attached 3 bullocks. These bullocks were sold for a sum of Rs. 300. It is against the order of execution of the decree by attachment and Bale of the bullocks that Mr. Gupta has come in revision under S. 85 of the Rules framed for the administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills.

(2.) HIS first contention is that the bullocks were not liable to attachment and he has referred me to R. 33 of the said rules for the administration of justice in the Garo Hills, Rule 33, among other things which are exempted from attachment, refers to "implements whereby the owner subsists", and Mr. Gupta contends that the bullocks attached in this case were implements whereby the judgment -debtor subsisted. He has frankly stated that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was an agriculturist, in all probability he was a trader.

(3.) MR . Gupta then raised the contention that in this case one of the parties was a relation of the Laskar who tried the suit and, under the rules he was not competent to do so. Here again Mr. Gupta was unable to show from the record that it has been established that any of the parties to the suit was a relation of the Laskar.