High CourtsDivision Bench(1906) 07 BOM CK 0007

Mulchand Dagdu vs Govind Gopal Kulkarni

Bombay High Court · Decided on 25 July 1906 · Citation: (1906) 8 BOMLR 578

HON’BLE JUDGES
Lawrence Jenkins, J · Beaman, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Application No. 61 of 1905

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 168 words

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.—This is an application to us u/s 122 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2.

The only question is whether the Subordinate Judge has committed an error within the scope of that section in holding that Section 310A of the CPC was not applicable to a purchaser subsequent to attachment and prior to sale under that attachment.

3.

In our opinion, where there has been a subsequent sale following on the attachment, a person answering this description is one whose Immovable property has been sold under the Chapter.

4.

In deciding otherwise the learned Judge has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which was vested in him.

5.

The decision of the learned Judge that the parties should determine the matters at issue between them in a suit u/s 310A is, in our opinion, erroneous.

6.

The rule is, therefore, made absolute; and the case must be sent back to the Subordinate Court for determination in the light of these remarks.

7.

Costs will follow the result.