AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mullick, J.—In this case the decree-holler in execution of a decree for arrears of rant attached certain plots of land some of which were claimed by the opposite-party as transferees from the tenant. A claim case under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. was registered by the Executing Court, but before it could be disposed of, for some reason or other, the sale was held an! the whole of the tenancy was purchased by the decree-holder at the auction. Notwithstanding this the Executing Court, on 30th November, 1922, proceeded to dispose of the claim case by allowing the claim in respect of the plots claimed by the objecting transferees. It is against this order that the decree-holder moves this Court in revision.
It is obvious that after the sale was; held the attachment was ipso facto determined and the Court had no longer any jurisdiction to try the claim case and so it was held in Gopal Chander Mukerji v. Nolobar Kuwlu 16 C.W.N. 1029.
It is contended by the learned Vakil for the opposite party that the sale was brought about by the fraud of the decree-holder. There is nothing to support this contention and in any event it would not affect the question of jurisdiction. The order of the Executing Court releasing the properties-claimed must be set aside.
The application is accordingly allowed with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur.
This order will govern Civil Revision Case Nos. 114 and 116 of 1923.
Bucknill, J.
I agree.