| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 2039 1961 SLD 2039 = 1961 PLD 177 |
Dacca High Court
Second Appeal No. 19 of 1957, decided on 4th July 1958.
Presented By: Hasan, J
Srish Chandra Dutta for Appellants. Syed Amjad Hossain for
Respondents.
Second Appeal No. 19 of 1957, decided on 4th July 1958.
Presented By: Hasan, J
Srish Chandra Dutta for Appellants. Syed Amjad Hossain for
Respondents.
BEJJOY KRISHNA PAIK AND ANOTHER-Appellants
VERSUS
MONTAJUDDI SHAIKH AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----- ---- S. 47-Court disposing of execution case after confirming sale-Not competent to entertain application. When the executing Court has disposed of the execution case after the confirmation of the sale the executing Court becomes functus officio, and, as such, any application under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is not maintainable by such Court. Firm Wasti Rama Gurditta Mal and others v. Mst. Ganeshi A I R 1939 Lah. 405 rel. Sarat Chandra Gayan v. Port Canning and Land Improve ment Co., Ltd., 224 I C 335 and Bhan Kumar Chandra and another v. Lachmi Kanta Rai Naik Kalia and others A I R 1941 Pat. 566 considered. JUDGMENT This appeal is at the instance of the judgment-debtors Nos. 2 and 3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :- A rent decree was obtained on the 27th July 1954, against some persons includingthe present appellants. The decree was put to execution, and the property was purchased by the decree -holder on the 14th July 1955. The sale was confirmed on the 16th August 1955. Thereafter, on the 3rd January 1956, the present appellants filed an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and under section 63 of the East Bengal State Acquisition Act. The executing Court rejected the application on the following findings "The petitioners allege that decree-holder's interest was acquired by Government under E. B. S. A. Act before the sale took place, and the Ex. Case ought to have been treated as withdrawn. The record shows that decree-holder purchased the property, and also took delivery of possession. The case is dead now. The application under section 47, C. P. C. appears to be not maintainable at this stage." On appeal by the said judgment-debtors the lower Appellate Court upheld the decision of the executing Court. Hence the present appeal. Mr. S. C. Dutta, the learned Advocate for the appellants, contends that in view ofprovision of section 63 of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act 1950,- "If any suit or proceedings for the recovery of any arrears which…