AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A preliminary objeatian is taken in .this case that no appeal lies. The facts briefly are that the lessened Sub-ordinate Judge had before him two questions to consider�(i) Was the decree which he was asked to execute capable of execution? and (2.) Was there anything due under It? The learned Subordinate Judge has decided the first issue against the judgment-debtor.
The judgment-debtor, therefore, wishes to appeal to this Court before the second issue is gone into. Whatever may be the rights of the matter in controversy-it is quite certain that there has been a steady cursus curiae in Calcutta that no appeal lies in such a case. Various authorities have been cited at length in the case of Eamini Debt v. Promotha Nath 27 Ind. Cas. 317 : 19 C.W.N. 755 : 20 C.L.J. 476. The same view was taken in the Full Bench case Chanmalswami Budraswami v. Gangadharappa Basltngappa 26 Ind. Cas. 885 : 39 B. 339 : 16 B L.R. 954.
It has constantly been said here that where there is a general practice sanctified by concurrent decisions in Calcutta we will not depart from it in Patna. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Hearing fee three gold mohurs.
Let the record be sent back at once.