BAI AMBUBIBI HAKIMKHAN Vs. SAYED HAIDERMIYA BAVDINMIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the decree-holder. He obtained against the judgment-debtor-respondent a decree for a sum of Rs. 760.00 with interest and cost. THEreafter he filed several darkhast to recover the decre- tal amount but did not succeed in obtaining the satisfaction of his decree THE present darkhast was filed on April 12 1972 He sought the recovery in the present darkhast of the total amount of Rs. 1988.05 paise. Notice was issued to the judgment-debtor who raised two objections to the execution of the decree. His first objection was that the execution of the decree was barred by time. His second objection was that the agricultural land which the decree-holder sought to attach was not liable to be attached. THE Executing Court over-ruled both the objections and ordered darkhast to proceed further. THE judgment-debtor appealed against that order to the District Court. THE learned Appellate Judge reversed both the findings and dismissed the darkhast. It is that order which is challenged in this second appeal.

(2.) THE first question which arises is whether the present second appeal is maintainable. A second appeal in execution proceedings lies by virtue of sec. 100 read with sec.