BULKEESU BEEGUM Vs. GONZAGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decree-holder in O. S. No. 74 of 1958 of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Quilon, is the appellant before us. In execution of the decree she attached certain amounts due to the judgment-debtor (respondent)from the Food Department of the Government of India.

(2.) BY an order dated 17-7-1961- after the remand directed in A. S. No. 392 of 1961-the lower court has vacated the order of attachment. This appeal questions the correctness of that order.

(3.) IT was suggested to us that the work contracted to be done was to be done within the jurisdiction of the court of the Subordinate judge of Quilon, that part of the cause of action hence arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, and that it is, therefore, possible for that court to issue a prohibitory order. We are unable to agree. What we are concerned with is the capacity to execute a decree, not the capacity to entertain a suit. As stated in AIR. 1928 Nagpur 210 a prohibitory order for attachment of money under O. XXI, R. 46, should come from a judge having jurisdiction in the place where it is to be executed.