AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dawson Miller, C.J.—After reciting the facts his Lordship continued;-
It seems to me that in a case of this sort where the decree gives effect to a charge on the property and orders the property to be sold in the event of the installments not being paid, it is altogether unnecessary that the procedure mentioned in Order 21, rule 30, should be carried out. That procedure is only applicable in the cases of a decree for the payment of money, that is to say, cases in which there is no decree which affects any specific immoveable property. In such cases before any specific immoveable property belonging to the judgment-debtor can be the subject of sale in satisfaction of the decree, it is necessary that the property should first be attached. In the present case, however, the decree itself provides for the sale of this very property in the event of the installments not being paid and the decree is in fact something more than a decree for the payment of money. It is not only a decree directing the payment of money but it is a decree directing that in the event of non-payment certain property belonging to the judgment-debtor shall be sold. The form of the decree is very similar to that in a mortgage decree. It is clear that in mortgage-decrees it is not necessary to attach the property and the reason for that is that the form of the decree in a mortgage suit itself directs that the property shall be sold. So here the form of this decree which created a charge upon the property directed that the property in question should be sold in a certain event which has happened. In my opinion Order 21, rule 30, has no application to a suit like the present, and the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge was right.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Kulwant Sahay, J.
I agree.