AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Having heard arguments on both sides we think that the appellant was not prejudiced by the refusal of the District Judge to accede to her
request for adjournment. There is no reason to disturb the order for the appointment of a receiver and we dismiss the appeal No. 177 with costs.
As regards the memorandum of objections we think that Section 590 of the CPC makes applicable the procedure of Section 561 to appeals
from orders and the memorandum of objections will lie - vide Kausalia v. Gulab Kuar I.L.R (1899) A. 297. Objection is taken to the District
Judge''s order allowing a maintenance allowance to the appellant. The appellant is not entitled to any allowance for her maintenance and the order
must be set aside.
The memorandum of objections is allowed with costs.