AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The lower Courts were in error in holding that the effect of the plain words of Order XXI, Rule 57, of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which ''upon the dismissal" of an application the attachment (made in execution) shall cease," can be nullified merely because the decree-holder thought otherwise, or prayed only for sale of the attached property in a subsequent petition on the footing that the attachment would continue notwithstanding the dismissal of the former petition.
However, our powers to allow amendments of proceedings and pleadings are very wide under the new Code (see Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure); and on the application of Mr. C.V. Ananthakrishna Iyer (who appears for the decree-holder-respondent) we permit his client to amend the Petition No. 835 of 1911 within three days by adding a prayer for attachment of the property sought to be sold. On such amendment being made, the District Munsif''s order on that petition will be modified by directing attachment and. sale instead of merely directing the sale of the said property. As the decree-holder ought to have applied for this amendment long ago, he should bear the appellant''s costs in the District Court and this Court and bear his own costs in these two Courts.