AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that no appeal lies. The '' order appealed against was made
on an application by the defendants that an application for execution put in by the plaintiff should be dismissed. In substance the application was for
an order that the sale under an execution should not be proceeded with on the ground that in the sale proclamation the value of the property had
been under-estimated. The Subordinate fudge dismissed the defendant''s application on ''the ground that the fact that the value of the property had
been under-estimated was immaterial. The effect of the Subordinate Judge''s order would be that the sale would be proceeded with
notwithstanding the fact of under valuation. We think the question raised by the defendant''s application was a question arising between the parties
to the suit in which the decree was passed, and relating to the execution of the decree within the meaning of Section 244 of the Civil Procedure
Code. It has been urged on behalf of the decree-holder (the respondent,) that having regard to the definition of "" decree"" contained in Section 2 of
the Code, ""an order determining any question mentioned or referred to in Section 244, but not specified in Section 588 "" is not an appealable
order unless it amounts to a "" formal expression of an adjudication upon a right claimed."" Even assuming that the order of the Subordinate Judge is
not in substance a formal expression of an adjudication upon a right claimed, it appears to us that so long as the order determines a question
referred to in Section 244, an appeal lies from such order. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Nihal Ghand v. Chuttoo Lal ILR 20 B. 288
no doubt supports the contention now put forward by the decree-holder, but we are not prepared to place the same construction on the words of
the definition of ""decree"" in Section 2 of the Code as the Calcutta High Court seems prepared to adopt.. We are, therefore, thrown back on
Section 244, and we have to say whether the question raised before the Subordinate Judge related to the execution. Without attempting to lay
down any general rule applicable to all orders passed in execution proceedings, it is sufficient to say that the order was made with reference to a
question which related to the execution, and, consequently, the order made is appealable. We accordingly overrule preliminary objection.
On the merits, we think the Subordinate Judge is clearly wrong in his view that the undervaluation was immaterial. The Law is now settled by
Privy Council decision in Saadatmand Khan v. Phul Kuar ILR 23 C. 425.
We allow the appeal with costs. We reverse the order of the Subordinate Judge, and we direct him to ascertain as far as possible the value of
the property and amend the sale proclamation accordingly.