BHANWARILAL Vs. MIR MOHAMMAD ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision petition raises an important question regarding the legality of the practice obtaining in the Civil Courts at Hyderabad, and also said to be obtaining in the other Courts in Telangana area.

(2.) The short facts are these. The petitioners (Decree-holders) filed E. P. No. 433 of 1961, in Small Cause Suit No. 312 of 1961 on the file of the Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and attached certain movables alleged to belong to the judgment-debtors. An enquiry was held by the learned Judge regarding the title to the moveables, and e found that they belonged not to the judgment-debtor, but to his brother, who claimed them to be his. At the time of attaching the moveables, the Bailiff, armed with a warrant of attachment had proceeded to the house of the judgment-debtor along with a process server. At the instance of the judgment-debtors wife, the attached property was kept in one of the rooms in the house of the judgment-debtors and it was locked, though the decree-holders were demanding that the attached property may be brought to Court. Whatever it be, that prayer was not granted, and the moveables were kept in that room. It was presumed by the Court, and the parties that even though the moveables were kept locked in a room, they were still in the custody of a process-server who was supposed to have been deputed by the Bailiff. In the instant case, one Osman Khan was the Bailiff, and the process server is one Azamali.

(3.) Eventually, the claim of the judgment-debtors brother was upheld, and the attachment was raised, and the decree-holders were called upon to pay what are called Toda charges, amounting to Rs. 64. The decree-holders protested against this claim, and contended that they were not liable to pay any such charges as they were not authorised by the Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code or the circulars thereunder, or by the Civil Rules of Practice after the establishment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court The learned Small Causes Judge, by his order dated 14-2-1962, rejected that contention and directed that the Toda charges should be paid within a week front that date.