Decided on February 19,1900



- (1.) We are. of opinion that when a party defendant in a suit is exonerated from such suit--the suit being dismissed against him and a decree passed agaiast a co-defendant in the suit--and in execution of thai decree property belonging to, and in the possession of, the defendant who was so exonerated from the suit is attached and sold, the latter is not entitled to maintain a suit for recovery of possession of the, property and that the question of his claim to, and to recover possession of, the property is a question foiling within Section 244. Civil procedure Code of 1882, so as to debar him from maintaining such suit.
(2.) It was contended before us that a defendant in whose favour the suit is dismissed is not a party to the suit within the meaning of the section, because there is no decree which can be executed against him and that the words " parties to the suit " in the section must be limited to the judgment-creditors and judgment-debtors, because they are the only persons between whom questions could arise " relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree or to the stay of execution thereof." We do not think this is a correct view of the section.
(3.) We do not think that the words " parties to the suit " can be limited in the way suggested. The Privy Council have more than once pointed out that a narrow construction should not be placed on the words of this section--the object of the enactment being to check needless litigation:;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.