1936 (3) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t in second appeal held that the suit was maintainable, overruling the decision of the Court of appeal below, which held otherwise. There can be no question that the decision of Mitter, J., holding that the plaintiffs' suit was maintainable, and that Section 47, Civil P. C., was no bar to the same, is unassailable, as the question of rectification of the petition of adjustment could not be decided by the successor-in-office of the Judge before whom it was filed, under Section 47, Civil P. C., in view of the order passed by the Judge recording satisfaction. 2. The substantial question for consideration in the appeal before us, is whether the learned Judge, Mitter, J., is right in his decision that the plaintiffs' suit was barred b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1929, and it would be going against the scope and operation of Section 14, Lim. Act, if it were held that it was the judgment-debtor's objection that was the proceeding before the Court of execution, and not the proceeding in execution started by the plaintiffs to which objection was raised by the judgment-debtors. The proceeding before the Court of execution was the one started on the application of the plaintiffs as decree-holders, to which objection was raised by the judgment-debtors under Section 47, Civil P. C.; the order on that proceeding was against the plaintiffs' objection raised by the judgment-debtors having been allowed to prevail. The proceeding was carried on in Courts of appeal; and the ultimate order passed in the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adjustment filed in the Court of execution on 22nd August 1925, the plaintiffs in the suit, the appellants before us, were entitled to the relief claimed by them so far as the rectification of the petition filed on 22nd August 1925 was concerned. The decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs by the Court of first instance, so far as the claim for rectification as mentioned above, is restored. 5. The plaintiffs' claim for declaration of their title and for possession, as made in the suit in which the appeal has arisen, is dismissed on the findings arrived at by the Court of appeal below. In the result the appeal is allowed in the manner mentioned above, the decree of the trial Court being restored in part. The plaintiffs-appellants a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X