JUDGMENT

A. P. Srivastava, J. - These are two connected execution first appeals and may be conveniently disposed of by the same judgment.

2. One Bidhi Chand filed a suit for recovery of money against Bedi Lal and others. After filing the suit he applied for the attachment before judgment of certain properties belonging to Bedi Lal defendant. The properties included a share in a grove and certain machinery installed in that grove. Attachment before judgment was ordered, and a Vakil Commissioner was appointed to make the attachment. He went to the spot, attached the properties, and put them in the supurdigi of one Mohammad Gulsher Khan. The latter executed a supurdnama in respect of the property. The suit was ultimately decreed, and an execution application. bearing execution case no. 39 of 1955 was filed to execute the decree. The decree was satisfied in part and by an order dated the 9th of October 1953 the execution application was struck off in part satisfaction. In course of the execution case it was alleged by the judgment-debtor Bedi Lal that some parts of the attached machinery which had been put in the custody of Mohammad Gulsher Khan had been removed and misappropriated by the latter. On the 22nd of February 1956, therefore, the judgment-debtor Bedi Lal made an application that Mohammad Gulsher Khan be made liable for the sum of Rs. 11,000 on account of the missing machinery parts. The application was filed under Section 145, C.P.C.

3. Mohammad Gulsher Khan objected to the application. He pleaded that the application was not maintainable under Section 145, C.P.C. and said that at the time when it had been attached the machinery was not in working order. As regards the flour mill and the weights etc., he said that they had been sold by the Amin on the 9th of Feb. 1956. He also denied having removed any parts as alleged. The learned Civil Judge held, in view of the decision reported in Mathura Das v. Hari Shanker, AIR 1949 Allahabad 306, that the application was maintainable under Section 145, C.P.C. He further held on facts that Mohammad Gulsher Khan was responsible for the loss illeged. He determined the amount of the loss for which Mohammad Gulsher Khan was liable as Rs. 979, and allowed the application to that extent. He also awarded to the judgment-debtor. Bedi Lal one-fourth of his costs in the proceedings. Against this order Mohammad Gulsher Khan has filed Ex. F.A. No. 84 of 1958.

4. Subsequently, Bedi Lal, the judgment-debtor, made a Second application, again under Section 145, C.P.C. This application was made on the 5th Feb. 1958, and it was alleged in it that after the 28th of June 1956 Mohammad Gulsher Khan had removed almost the entire remaining portions of the attached Machinery. It was said that the whole machinery was worth Rs. 11,587. Out of it parts worth Rs. 1,010 had been sold in execution case No. 54 of 1957, and for parts removed earlier Mohammad Gulsher Khan had already been held liable for Rs. 979. He was, therefore liable for the balance of Rs. 9,598.

5. This application was also opposed by Mohammad Gulsher Khan, who pleaded that it was not legally maintainable and denied having removed any machinery as was alleged. In this case it was also pleaded that the original attachment was invalid. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence that was produced the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that Mohammad Gulsher Khan could be held liable for Rs. 1,821 only. He, therefore, allowed this application also in part and directed that a decree for Rs. 1,821 be prepared in favour of Bedi Lal against Mohammad Gulsher Khan. He also allowed proportionate costs, and 3% future interest. Mohammad Gulsher Khan has submitted to the order, but Bedi Lal, the judgment debtor, has come up in appeal against the order. His appeal is Ex. F. A. No. 579 of 1958.

6. Besides contending that the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge in the two cases were not justified on the materials on the record, learned