RAMAN PILLAI Vs. MADHAVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this petition who is the purchaser of the 1st defendants share of the properties, in execution of the decree in O.S. 240 of 1103 of the Alleppey District Court filed a claim petition before the Munsiffs Court of Haripad alleging that he had already taken delivery of the properties, that the attachment effected by the petitioner in O.S. 442 of 122 is not subsisting and that he was not entitled to proceed against the properties. The learned Munsiff allowed the petition.

(2.) It is seen that the 1st execution petition filed by the petitioner was on 28-12-1124 and that was dismissed on 29-7-1950. The next petition was on 20-3-53 and that petition was also dismissed on 1-4-53. The 3rd application was on 29-8-53 and that was also dismissed on 17-6-54 for nonpayment of process fee. No order was passed either on 1-4-53 or 17-6-54 that the attachment would subsist. The contention of the respondent is that under O.21, R.57 if the application is dismissed and if no steps were taken pursuant to the attachment within three months of such dismissal the attachment would cease. What is contended by the petitioners is that in the absence of a direction for the cessation of a subsisting attachment made by the court the attachment would continue.

(3.) O.21, R.57 which is the provision that falls to be considered runs as follows:-