AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Das, J.—The second appeal does not lie. The application was an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, and two Courts have successively dealt with that application. It is now contended before us by Mr. Lachhmi Narayan Sinha that the Dhanbad Court had no jurisdiction to sell the property, the decree having been passed by the Court of Purulia. We are informed that there was no order transferring the case from the Purulia Court to the Dhanbad Court. Mr. Lachhmi Narayan Sinha may be right or he may be wrong in his contention; but I am clearly of opinion that the objection, if any, should have been taken before the Court proceeded to sell the property. The property having been sold the execution case was at an end; and it cannot now be urged that the question which is raised by Mr. Lachhmi Narayan Sinha is a question that arises in execution.
Mr. Lachhmi Narayan Sinha invited us to treat this appeal as an application, and to hold that the order of the Court below is erroneous. Where the only point is that there was no formal order of transfer by the Purulia Court to the Dhanbad Court it does not seem to us that we ought to invoke our revisional jurisdiction in the matter. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Kulwant Sahay, J.
I agree.