Case Details

Citation(s)
1963 SLG 3468 = 1963 SLD 3468 = 1963 PLD 829
Dacca High Court
Appeal from Appellate Orders Nos. 33 and 34 of 1959, decided on 18th April 1961.
Presented By: Idris, J
S. K. Sen for Appellant.   B. N. Chowdhury for
Respondents 1, 2 & 5.   S. A. Chowdhury for Deputy Registrar.

  KHALILUR REHMAN----Appellant  

VERSUS

  BINOY BHUSAN SAHA AND OTHERS-----Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

  Decree-Execution of-Movables attached but not sold Case ultimately dismissed in default-Execution case not incompe tent merely because movables were attached-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 47.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 2 (2), 96 & 100 Appeal dismissed for non-payment of process fees and omitting to file vakalatnama-Dismissal not a decree but operates as if no appeal had been filed.   [Case-law referred to.]   East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act (XXVIII of 1951), Ss. 69 (1) & 70 (1)-Costs decreed before 7-4-1948, held to be debt-Execution application barred. JUDGMENT   These Miscellaneous Appeals at the instance of the petitioner No. 1 (judgment-debtor No. 1) are directed against the same judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Chittagong, in two Miscel laneous Appeals reversing the decision of the Munsif, 1st Court, Sadar, Chittagong, in two Miscellaneous cases tried analogously. This judgment will govern the orders in both the appeals.   The facts which have led to these appeals, are shortly as follows: Opposite-party(decree-holders) got two decrees in two Title Suits against the petitioner No. 1 and some others on 29-6-1945. There are appeals against both the decrees and the appeals were dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 28-2-1946. Against the decrees of the first-Appellate Court, there were two second appeals to this Court and the second appeals were dismissed on 30-6-1955, as vakalatnamas and process-fees were not filed. After taking delivery of possession on the basis of the decrees, opposite-party has started other class Execution Cases Nos. 97 of 1957 and 98 of 1957 on 9-12-1957 for realisation of costs allowed by the decrees. Petitioner No. 1 and another judgment-debtor filed objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the maintainability of the execution cases. The case of the petitioners is that as they are rent-receivers and their interests have been acquired by the Government under the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act,. 1950 (herein after to be called the Act), the execution cases for realisation of the costs of the decrees are barred under…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register