| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 4028 = 1957 SLD 4028 = 1957 PLD 499 |
Dacca High Court
Civil Rule No. 469 of 1954, decided on 24th November 1955, against the order, dated the 15th March 1954, of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court Dacca in Money Suit No.34 of 1949.
Presented By: Ispahani and Badiuzzaman, JJ
Jnanabratb Roy for Suresh Chandra Ba u for Petitioner. Kali Mohan Saha for Opposite-Parties.
Civil Rule No. 469 of 1954, decided on 24th November 1955, against the order, dated the 15th March 1954, of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court Dacca in Money Suit No.34 of 1949.
Presented By: Ispahani and Badiuzzaman, JJ
Jnanabratb Roy for Suresh Chandra Ba u for Petitioner. Kali Mohan Saha for Opposite-Parties.
THE UNITED INDUSTRIAL BANK, LTD.----Appellant Petitioner
VERSUS
MESSRS UPENDRALAL RAY PROHLAD CHANDRA RAY FIRM and others----Opposite----Parties
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 34
DaCca,ip Money Suit No. 34 Civil Procedure Code (Y of 1908), O. XL1, r. S (3) Appropriate form of bond. The appropriate form for the execution of bond under rule 5 of Order XLI is form 2 of Appendix G. Where, therefore, pursuant to be order of the High Court which directed deposit of the claim with costs in cash or security in lieu thereof, the opposite-parties filed a surety bond wherein no property had been hypothecated. Held, that the specific form provided under rule 5 of Order XLI, for the execution of bonds was not complied with and hence the bond executed was in contravention of the High Court order and should be rectified. ORDER ISPAHANI, J.----This is a petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order, dated 15th March 1954, passed by the Second Subordinate Judge, Dacca, in Money Suit No. 34 of 1949, rejecting an application for the rejection of a bond executed by the present opposite parties. The facts briefly are that the petitioner Bank filed the said money suit against the opposite parties and others claiming a certain amount on a cash credit account for advances made for running the business of the opposite parties. The suit was contested by defendants opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6, but at the time of hearing they did not appear, and an ex parte decree was passed on 11th January 1951. From that decree two petitions under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code were filed for setting aside the said decree, and those petitions were dismissed by the trial Court. There after the defendants preferred two appeals in the High Court which were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 21st December 1953. It was directed that on the defen dants depositing the amount of the claim and the costs of the Court below, and also the hearing fee of two Gold Mohurs of the High Court or on furnishing security in lieu thereof to the satisfaction of the Court below within a month from date, the appeals would be taken as being allowed without costs, and the order complained of be set aside. In default of the compliance of the above order as to deposit or security within the period as specified, the…