AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesam, J.—A preliminary objection is taken that the civil revision petition does not lie as a second appeal lies. The petition before me is by the auction purchaser and not the judgment-debtor or decree-bolder. So the second appeal does not lie though the appeal to the Court below was u/s 47, (Civil P.C. Act 5 of 1908). I overruled the preliminary objection.
On the merits this is not a case for interference u/s 115, Civil P.C., Act 5 of 1908. The proceedings after the attachment of the debt are so grossly irregular that the order of the District Judge is the only order that can be made on the facts. The lower Court''s order takes note of the interests of the petitioner and sufficiently protects them. The fact that the auction-purchaser files this petition adds to the suspicion smelt in the judgment of the lower Court. The sentence in the judgment of the lower Court "he has since collected the decree debt from them in another manner" is not intelligible and the vakil for the respondents admits he is not able to explain it. I think "the another manner" probably refers to the setting off a part of the debt of Rs. 4,050 due from the decree-holder to the judgment-debtor towards the decree with the result that only Rs. 2,375 will remain duo. Anyhow this is not a case which requires my interference.
The petition is dismissed with costs.