JUDGMENT

Dar, J. - Firm Surajbali Ram Harakh instituted a Suit No. 437 of 1933 in the Court of Munsif of Bansi for recovery of a sum of money against Munishwar Kolapuri and others. During the pendency of the suit, on the application of Firm Surajbali Ram Harakh, the Munsif of Bansi, on 12th May 1933 passed an order of attachment before judgment, of certain immovable property owned by Munishwar Kolapuri and others. This property was situated outside the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Bansi. Accordingly a request was made by the Munsif of Bansi to the Munsif of Gorakhpur, within whose jurisdiction the said property was situated, to attach the property and on 21st May 1933 the Munsif of Gorakhpur carried out the attachment. After the attachment and in due course the suit was tried by the Munsif of Bansi and resulted in a decree in favour of Firm Surajbali Ram Harakh who after obtaining the decree proceeded to execute the decree against the property which had already been attached. In this they were resisted by Mohar Ali Khan and others who claimed to have purchased the property under a sale deed dated 3rd October 1934, executed by Munishwar and others and one Gopi who was not a party to Suit No. 437 of 1933, in favour of Kariman, father of Mohar Ali Khan and others.

2. In order to establish the validity of this sale, Mohar Ali Khan and others raised an action in the Court of the Additional Munsif of Gorakhpur for a declaration that Firm Surajbali Ram Harakh was not entitled to execute the decree against Munishwar and others by selling the property which was attached before judgment on 2lst May 1933 and which had been sold to their father on 3rd October 1934. To this suit, Firm Surajbali Ram Harakh were made defendant 1 and Munishwar and others were made defendants 2 to 14 and the main contest in the case was between the plaintiff who claimed to have purchased the property under the sale of 1934 from Munishwar and others and Firm Surajbali Ram Harakh who were the decree-holders in Suit No. 437 of 1933 and who had attached the property before judgment. A number of questions arose about the validity of the purchase made by Mohar Ali Khan and others and about the validity of attachment made by the Firm Surajbali Ram Harakh, but it is not necessary to mention all of them for the purposes of this judgment. One matter in controversy was whether the attachment made by the Munsif of Gorakhpur was validly and properly made or, in other words, whether the Munsif of Gorakhpur had any authority in law to make the attachment or not at the request of the Munsif of Bansi.

3. The trial Court found in favour of Firm Surajbali Ram Harakh's contention, that is, in favour of the validity of attachment and consequently it dismissed the suit. The learned civil and Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur in appeal found against the validity of attachment and in favour of Mohar Ali Khan and others' contention and consequently he decreed the claim and granted such reliefs as were available to plaintiffs on findings on other part of the case. The Firm Surajbali Ram Harakh has made a second appeal to this Court and the question for consideration is whether the attachment made by the Munsif of Gorakhpur in circumstances mentioned above, was unauthorized and invalid or not. It is conceded that if the view of the lower appellate Court about the invalidity of the attachment be accepted as correct, no other point arises in the case and the appeal would fail.

4. This raises the question as to what are the powers of a Court when it wants to attach property before judgment which is situated outside its jurisdiction. It is not disputed that the Court has power to order attachment of property outside its own jurisdiction. It is also not disputed that the Court passing the order of attachment cannot directly attach property outside its own jurisdiction and it can only ask the Court in whose jurisdiction the property actually is to carry out the order of attachment and complete the for