KRISHNA TEXTILES Vs. J R EXPORTS INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the order of the City Civil Judge, Madras, who, in an under chapter suit, failed to notice the prior order passed by him, attaching the moneys of the judgment-debtor in the hands of garnishees, by way of attachment before judgment. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed an under chapter suit on the foot that the defendant owed him moneys for goods sold and delivered. He also rested his case on two dishonoured cheques issued by the defendant. Having regard to the conduct of the defendant, the plaintiff, finding that the defendant was an out of State dealer, sought for attachment before judgment of certain moneys belonging to the defendant in the hands of garnishees. The application for attachment before judgment was ordered.

(2.) THE defendant attempted to obtain leave to defend, but later on gave up the same and submitted to a decree. The learned trial Judge passed a decree, who, at the request of the defendant, gave him the indulgence of paying the decree amount in instalment. But, curiously enough, at the time of passing the decree, he dismissed the application for attachment before judgment, without even any objection or request by the defendant against the said attachment or for raising it for proper reasons. It is as against this direction resulting in the summary raising of the attachment of the moneys belonging to the defendant in the hands of garnishees the present appeals have been filed.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that, when the defendant submitted to a decree, more or less by consent, there was no occasion for the learned Judge to summarily dismiss the application for attachment before judgment on the only ground that a decree had been passed enabling the defendant to pay the amount thereunder in instalments. Learned counsel for the respondent (defendant) would, however, say that eo instanti the decree is allowed to be satisfied by paying moneys in monthly instalments or at stated intervals, then the order for attachment of any of the properties of the defendant could not thereafter survive and that therefore the order of the learned Judge dismissing the application for attachment before judgment in the above circumstances was right.