Place of business of company situated outside jurisdiction of exciting Court.

This appeal raises an interesting question of the validity of attachment of certain shales belonging to the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder Lakshmi-pathi obtained a decree in O.S. No. 2344 of 1960 on the file of the City Civil Con-by consent. He filed E.P. No. 1458 of 1966 to recover a sum of Rs 8 000 odd by attachment and sale of the shares which the judgment-debtor Raoof held in a company called Intrac Pharmaceutical (Private) Limited, Industrial Estate Ambattur. An interim prohibitory order was issued both to the judgment-dehtor and to the company. The company did not appear and object The judgment-debtor appeared and took time to file a counter. He did not file the counter in time and so the attachment was made absolute. Against that order he has filed the present appeal.

The point taken on behalf of the appellant by his learned Counsel Sri K. N. Subramanian is that though the judgment-debtor Raoof lives within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Madras and the shares also are with him the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to issue the prohibitory order, because the place of business of the company is Ambattur, outside the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and the dividend due on the shares is also payable only at Ambattur. In my opinion this contention is not sound. Section 51(b), Civil Procedure Code, states that subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property. Order 21, rule 46 prescribes the mode of attachment. It is necessary to quote it in full:

“46 (1). In the case of —

(a) a debt not secured by a negotiable instrument,

(b) a share in the Capital of a corporation,

(c) other moveable property not in the possession of the judgment-debtor except property deposited, in, or in the custody of, any Court,

the attachment shall be made by a wirtten order prohibiting —

(i) in the case of the debt, the creditor from recovering the debt and the debtor from making payment thereof until the further order of the Court;

(ii) in the case of the share, the person in whose name the share may be standing from transferring the same or receiving any dividend thereon;

(iii) in the case of the other moveable property except as aforesaid the person in possession of the same from giving it over to the judgment-debtor.

(2) A copy of such order shall be affixed on some conspicuous part of the Court-house and another copy shall be sent in the case of the debt to the debtor, in the case of the share, to the proper officer of the Corporation and in the case of the other moveable property (except as aforesaid) to the person in possession of the same.

(3) A debtor prohibited under clause (i) of sub-rule (1) may pay the of his debt into Court and such payment shall discharge him as effectually as payment to the party entitled to receive the same.”

It is section 51, Civil Procedure Code, which gives the jurisdiction to the Court to attach and sell the shares and therefore the question whether the City Civil C had jurisdiction to attach the shares must be determined primarily with reference to this section. Order 21, rule 46, Civil Procedure Code, only prescribes the mode of attachment, though the provisions thereof may have to be borne in mind in determining the question of jurisdiction. The principle obviously underlying section 51(b), Civil Procedure Code, is that, if the property sought to be attached is within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court can attach and sell the property. That is reinforced by the provisions of sections 39 and 46, Civil Procedure Code, which provide for the transfer of the decree to a Court within whose limits the property sought to be attached and sold is situate. Applying this criterion, since the properties sought to be attached and sold are the shared of the judgment debtor and they are with him in Madras within the li