PEDDI SIVIAH Vs. C RAMANATH A FIRM CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT GENERAL BAZAR SECUNDERABAD PER ITS PROPRIETOR BADRINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of an order dated 20-7-1956 made by the Court of the Subordinate Judge Secunderabad directing attachment of the movables of the plaintiff-judgment-debtor and his surety in execution. C. M. S. A. No. 100 of 1956 is brought by the plaintiff-judgment-debtor from the appellate order of the Court of the District Judge of Secunderabad confirming as against him the aforesaid order of the Subordinate Judge. C. M. S. A. No. 59 of 1957 is brought by the defendant-decree-holder against the appellate order of the Court of the District Judge, Secunderabad allowing the appeal of the plaintiffs surety from the same order of the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) A preliminary objection is taken in C. M. S. A. No. 100 of 1956 by the defendant-decree-holder that no appeal lay to the Court of the District Judge. This point was also raised by him as a ground of attack against the order of the District Judge in C. M. S. A. No. 59 of 1957 against the order of the District Judge. The objection is founded on Section 15 of the Hyderabad City Civil Court Act, 1954 which is in the following terms:

(3.) The orders of the Court of the District Judge in these two appeals are set aside as being incompetent and the order of the Subordinate Judge restored. The cases are sent back to the Court of the District Judge for returning the memoranda of appeal to the respective appellants for presentation to proper Court. As no objection to the jurisdiction to the lower appellate Court was taken there, the parties will bear their own costs in these appeals.