Back
1927 Supreme(Nagpur) 193
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Prideaux
NAZARALI – Appellant
Versus
BALA AND ANR – Respondent
Decided on : 21-09-1927
Proper execution proceedings and adherence to the correct legal provisions are essential for the valid enforcement of a decree.
Headnote:
Execution Proceedings - Prohibitory Order - Proper Disposal of Execution Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The applicant obtained a decree against a contractor for a certain amount, and applied for execution by seeking a prohibitory order for attachment of money due to the contractor by the Railway Company. However, the execution proceedings were struck off as infructuous due to procedural errors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prohibitory order did not fall under the relevant legal provision and was improperly addressed to the wrong person, leading to the proper disposal of the execution proceedings. The court dismissed the application with costs to be paid by the applicant.
Issues: Proper execution proceedings, applicability of legal provisions, and correct addressee of the prohibitory order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions, specifically Order 21, Rule 46 and Rule 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the determination that the execution proceedings were improperly conducted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application with costs to be paid by the applicant, and fixed pleader's fees at Rs. 15.
Prideaux, A J C—The applicant in this case obtained a decree against one Bala for Rs. 218-6-6 including costs. Bala was a contractor for the G.I.P. Ry. Co. The applicant applied for execution to the Small Cause Court, Khandwa, and asked for a prohibitory order for attachment of certain money due to Bala by the G.I.P. Ry. Co. The applicant obtained the order and it was sent to the Chief Auditor, Bombay, and to the Loco Traffic Manager, Nagpur. The Bombay Office returned it on 27th March 1925, pointing out, and rightly so, that the attachment obviously fell under Order 21, Rule 46, Civil P.C., and should come from a Judge having jurisdiction in Bombay. Then the prohibitory order was served on the Station Master, Khandwa, obviously a wrong person to address such a document to. The execution proceedings have been struck off as wholly infructuous.
2. It is fairly obvious that unless the applicant can bring the prohibitory order under Order 21, Rule 48, Civil P.C., he has no case. I am certain that the property, in this case, which belonged to a Railway contractor and consisted of payments to be made to him for work done, is neither the salary nor the allowance of a servant of the Railway Company. It is also clear that the Station Master, Khandwa, was not the proper person to address to in the matter. On the facts I have no hesitation in finding that the execution proceedings have been properly disposed of. I accordingly dismiss this application with costs. The applicant will pay the non-applicants' costs. I fix pleader's fees at Rs. 15.
Final Result : Dismissed
