AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is objected that no appeal lies because orders u/s 583 of the CPC are not mentioned in Section 588 of the Code. But Section 583 gives no
right which a successful party did not otherwise possess. It only regulates the exercise of his right of having the state of things, as it stood before the
erroneous decree was passed, restored.
I think an appeal lies against the order as against any order passed in execution. The order of the Subordinate Judge is quite unworkable and
cannot stand. In order to replace the present appellant the Judge must determine what the nature and extent of that appellant''s prior possession
was, and, in that sense, he must decide the question between the two defendants.
I must reverse the order and direct the Subordinate Judge to find whether the appellant was in possession of any, or what part of, the two-
third''s share and, if so, whether solely or jointly with the other defendant and to pass orders accordingly.
The costs of this appeal are left to be dealt with by the Subordinate Judge.