AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is contended that, as an appeal lies from the order made by the District Judge, the appellant''s petition u/s 622 was not maintainable, and that,
therefore, it was properly rejected. It must be conceded that the order is appealable u/s 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure--Vallabhan v.
Panqtmni ILR 12 Mad. 454 and Muttia v. Appasami ILR 13 Mad. 504.
It is urged on behalf of respondent that as he is not an assignee of the decree, but one who attached it u/s 273, the above rulings are not
applicable. This, however, makes no difference in principle, as one who attaches a decree is the decree-holder''s representative within the meaning
of Section 244, as was also held by the Calcutta High Court in Peary Mohun Chowdhry v. Romesh Chunder Nundy ILR 15 Cal. 371.
It is further contended that the objection that the District Judge''s order is appealable was not urged before the learned Judge or before us when
we made our former order. This is true; but the objection is one that goes to the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere at all u/s 622. We must,
therefore, entertain the objection.
The learned Judge''s order dismissing the petition was, therefore, correct; but it should have proceeded on the ground that the application u/s
622 could not be entertained, the order objected to being appealable.
We dismiss this appeal, but, under the circumstances, without costs.