AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.—The plaintiff-applicant applied under Order XXI, Rule 71 to recover the deficiency of price from a defaulting purchaser. His claim has been disallowed in two Courts. The question arises whether a second appeal lies. The claim is for Rs. 360. But for the provisions of Rule 71, a suit would have had to be filed for that amount. It would have been a Small Cause Court suit. But under the provisions of Rule 71 the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor can proceed in execution to recover the deficiency as if there had been a decree already passed for the payment of that amount. We think, therefore, that we must treat the application made by the plaintiff as one made in execution of a Small Cause Court decree, and there is no second appeal, from such an application. There is no reason why we should treat it as an application u/s 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appeal is dismissed with costs.