MEERA SAIBO v. SAMARANAYAKA et al

 MEERA SAIBO v. SAMARANAYAKA et al.

 D. C., Kandy, 94,630.

Writ of execution against property-Commitment of judgment-debtor-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 824,337, 347-Fatalh-regularities.

Where plaintiff petitioned in terms of section 347 of the Civil Proce­dure Code, after several years had elapsed between the date of the decree in his favour and the application for its execution, but suppressed the facts that he had made previous applications for execution of the decree and levies had been made on his writ, and, nevertheless, his application was allowed,

Held that, in the absence of any evidence to satisfy the Court, as provided in section 337 of the Code, that in the last preceding applica­tion due diligence had been used to procure complete satisfaction of the decree, or that execution was stayed at the request of the judgment-debtor, leave to execute the decree should not have been granted.

Writ against property having issued, and the Fiscal having made return thereto that the judgment-debtors neither complied with his requirement to pay nor pointed out property for seizure, plaintiff moved for and obtained a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor, and had him arrested and committed to prison.

Held that, as the order allowing writ against property had improvide emanavit, the writ and the return thereto was unsound, as also the warrant of arrest and the commitment of the defendant to prison.

De Silva v. Sella Umma, 2 S. C. R., 155, explained.

THIS was an appeal from an order made by the District Judge of Kandy on the 9th December, 1895, committing to civil imprisonment the appellant who had been arrested under a warrant against person in execution of a decree obtained against him on the 27th September, 1884.

The facts of the case are fully set forth in the judgments given below :

Wendt, for appellant.

Dornhorst, for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

Withers, J.

On the 27th September, 1884, the appellant and another of the same name were decreed jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 256 with interest till payment in full and costs.

Writ against property issued thereupon, and on the 11th Nov­ember, 1884, two lands were sold, one for Rs. 46, bought by an outsider, and one for Rs. 20, bought by the plaintiff, who was fortunate enough to secure for Rs. 20 a land valued by the Fiscal's officer at Rs. 400, and for this he obtained an order of credit.

On the 11th March, 1885, writ against property was allowed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document