Back
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Mangalmurti
GYARSILAL – Appellant
Versus
SHANKAR RAO AND OTHERS – Respondent
Civil Revision No. 547 of 1947
Decided on : 29-07-1949
Mangalmurt - Application for Revision - Order XXI, rule 52 of the Civil Procedure Code - Sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the attachment and transfer of a deposit amount between multiple parties and courts. The applicant sought payment of the deposit, while the non-applicant contested the jurisdiction of the attaching court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the attaching court did not have jurisdiction to order the attachment of the deposit, and the transfer of the amount to another court was also without jurisdiction. The court set aside the order for transfer and directed the return of the money to the original court.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the attaching court, validity of the transfer of the deposit amount, and the rights of the parties in relation to the deposit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that territorial jurisdiction is a condition precedent to a court executing a decree, and the attaching court did not have jurisdiction to order the attachment of the deposit. The absence of specific language in the relevant provision indicated that it was not an exception to the general rule.
Final Decision: The application for revision was allowed to the extent that the transfer of the deposit amount was set aside, and the money was directed to be returned to the original court. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Mangalmurt—The facts leading to this application for revision are briefly as follows :
One Gyarsilal obtained a decree on the 16th January 3928 in civil suit no. 34 of 1926 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Bhandara, against Malhar Rao father of Shankar Rao, Mahadeo Rao and Bholanath (non-applicants nos. 1 to 3 before me). This decree was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First' Class, Raipur, on the 26th November 1945. On the 14th December 1945 the decree-holder Gyarsilal filed an application for execution of that decree and prayed under Order XXI, rule 52 of the Civil Procedure Code for attachment of the deposit of Rs. 19,000 made by the three brothers, namely Shankar Rao, Mahadeo Rao and Bholanath, in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, as per order of that Court to obtain time to move this High Court for staying the execution of the decree in civil suit no. 19 of 1927 which one Kalyanjibhai had obtained against the three brothers and which was in appeal before this High Court. The number of the civil court deposit was 64-B dated the 20th June 1944. This attachment was effected on the 15th April 1946 and on the 27th June 1946 an order was passed by the executing Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Raipur, to the effect that the execution be struck off. but the attachment of Rs. 19,000 be continued for a period of one year from the 27th June 1946.
2. During this period of one year this High Court dismissed on the 6th November 1946 miscellaneous appeal no. 43 of 1940 which was filed by Shankar Rao and others. On the 16th November 1946 Gyarsilal applied to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, to pay the amount of Rs. 19,000 in civil court deposit no. 64-B of the 20th June 1944 to him as it was under his attachment. Nazir's report whether there was such a deposit was called for and he made a report on the very application on the 18th November 1946 mentioning that the amount was in deposit. No further action was taken on that application of Gyarsilal dated the 16th November 3946 till the 28th July 1947 when this fact, namely that no action was taken on that application, was brought to the notice of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, by its Reader in the proceedings started by the non-applicant no. 4 Shamrao against the non-applicants nos. 1 to 3, viz., Shankar Rao, Mahadeo Rao and Bholanath. Shamrao and his cousin Parashram had filed civil suit no. 31 of 1927 in the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Nagpur, and obtained a decree on the 18th December 1927 against Malhar Rao. The decree-holders got this decree transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bhandara, in 1933-34, but no recoveries were made till the year 1946. During this period the judgment-debtor Malhar Rao died on the 22nd August 1937 and Parashram (cousin of Shamrao non-applicant no. 4) died on the 8th October 1938. On the 19th February 1946 Shamrao made an application to the Bhandara Court praying for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased Malhar Rao and Parashram in their places and on that very date he applied to that Court for attachment of the sum of Rs. 19,000 which was in civil court deposit no. 64-B of the 20th June 1944 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur. The Court of the Additional District Judge, Bhandara, thereupon ordered the issue of a prohibitory order under Order XXI, rule 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was duly served on the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, on the 9th May 1946. The legal representatives of the deceased Malhar Rao and Parashram were brought on record on the 14th December 1946.
3. On the 11th January 1947 the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bhandara, asked the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, to remit the amount to it, but the latter refused to do so. Shamrao (non-applicant no. 4) again applied to the Court of the Additional D
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
