AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chakravarthi, J.—This Rule in my opinion is concluded by the judgments in the case of Jogindra Nath Chatterjee v. Monmotho Nath Ghose [1912] 18 C.L.J. 566. No doubt in later cases, notably in the case of Dhirendra Nath v. Kamini Kumar, AIR 1924 Cal. 786 , it has been pointed out that an attaching creditor after he has obtained his decree is a person, who comes within the purview of the amended words of Rule 90, Order 21, Code of Civil Procedure. This later case, however, distinguishes the case of Jogendra v. Monmotho [1912] 18 C.L.J. 566 and in no way touches the authority of the earlier case. In this state of the authorities I am bound to follow the case of Jogendra Nath Chatterjee v. Monmotho Nath Ghose [1912] 18 C.L.J. 566. That being so, this Rule fails and must be discharged.
In the circumstances, I make do order as to costs.