AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The plaintiff got a decree on the 9th March 1914 which was continued by the High Court on the 5th September 1917. The decree was in favour of the plaintiff and the third defendant for possession against defendants Nos. 1 and 2, together with profits for two previous years and future, profits at a certain rate. The plaintiff by means of a Dzrkhast obtained possession. Thereafter he assigned the decree to the present applicant who sought to execute the decree for mesne profits with costs. The defendants objected to the transfer of the decree and also contended that the previous Dzrkhasts were not "in accordance with law'' because they ware applications for partial execution. The learned First Class Subordinate Judge, however, directed execution to proceed.
We do not think that there is any substance in the suggestion that the previous Durhhasts for possessions were not "in accordance with law" so that they could not be considered as steps-in-aid of execution. In Dalichand Bhudar v. Bai Shivbor 15 B. 242 : 8 Ind. Dec. 164, it was held that a judgment-debtor who did not appeal, against a previous order for execution of a portion of the decree and who did not dispute the validity of such order, could not, in the matter of a subsequent application for execution of the remaining portion of the decree, contend that the first application was not ''''in accordance with law." In this case as there was no objection to the validity of the previous Darkhasts, the present objection cannot be sustained.
The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with costs.