LACHHOO Vs. FIRM MUNNI LAL-BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Order 10 of the Letters Patent against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. After having heard the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the decision is correct and this appeal ought to be dismissed.

(2.) There is no dispute about the facts and they may be stated briefly. The defendant to the present suit obtained a decree against the firm of Chiranji Lal Babu Lal. Both parties were dissatisfied with the decree passed by the first Court and two appeals were filed. The firm of Chiranji Lal Babu Lal had been sued through Babu Lal who died after the decree of the first Court during the pendency of the appeal. No efforts were made in any of the appeals to bring the legal representatives of Babu Lal on the record. We have not been told as to what the result of the appeals was but this much is clear that the defendant to the present suit even after the decision of the appeal had some sort of a decree against the firm of Chiranji Lal Babu Lal and in execution of that decree he applied to have the names of Lachhmi Narain alias Lachhoo and Musummat Asharfi substituted in place of Babu Lal. Lachhmi Narain objected but his objection was disallowed and he was brought on the record as a legal representative of Babu Lal. There was a appeal against this decision. Subsequently the decree was transferred to Hathras for execution and some property in the hands of Lachhmi Narain as attached. Lachhmi Narain objected to the attachment of the property on the ground that it was the personal property of Babu Lal and not the property of the firm and that it had come into the possession of Lachhmi Narain by survivorship.

(3.) These objections were headed in the execution department by Lachhmi Narain as being under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. But the heading was amended later and they were described as under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Munsif in whose Court the objections were filed, allowed the amendment but when the decree holder appeared to reply to the objections, he averred that the objections were really under Section M of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Munsif, however, treated them under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, and disallowed the objections of Lachhmi Narain.