AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is not denied that according to a recent decision of this Court the application of the 30th May 1907 is an application to take a step-in-aid of
the execution of the decree, nor is it denied that, standing by itself, it is in accordance with law; but it is contended that because it was not
preceded by an application for an order u/s 89, Transfer of Property Act, it cannot be regarded as having been made in accordance with law. The
applications of 1901 and 1904 asked for sale of the property, but did not expressly ask for an order u/s 89 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Probably they might properly to regarded as applications impliedly asking for such an'' order, as was done in Baldeo Prasad v. Ibn Haidar 27 A.k
625 but it is not necessary to do that in this case. They all asked for recognition of the applicant as transferee of the decree and for notice to the
judgment-debtor u/s 248 of the CPC then in force, and so according to the decisions were applications to take a step-in-aid of execution even if
they had not asked for sale, and inasmuch as the recognition of the transfer was necessary before an order u/s 89 could be made, there is no
reason, to hold that they were not in accordance with law by reason that that application had not previously been made. The appeals are allowed
and the decrees of the Courts below reversed the Court of first instance will restore the applications to its file and dispose of them according to
law. Costs will abide the event.