KESHAV NARAYAN Vs. GHASIRAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances giving rise to this revision petition arc that the non -applicants Ghasiram, Jayaram and Shayamlal held a money decree against the non -applicant Jagannath. In execution of this decree certain property alleged to be the properly of the judgment -debtor Jagannath was attached. The applicant Keshav Narayan's father (who is now dead) objected to the attachement asserting that Jagannath had mortgaged the property with him and had duly put him in possession us a mortgagee.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have formed the view that order of the Civil Judge Second Class Shivpuri holding that the applicant is not entitled to the possession of the property cannot be upheld.

(3.) THIS is clear from the decision of the Privy Council in - 'Sm. Bibi Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra', 35 Cal 202 (PC) (A) where Lord Robertson in delivering the judgment of die Board pointed out that a suit instituted under Section 283 Code of Civil Procedure 1882 (which corresponds to Order 21 Rule 63 of the present Code) was merely a mode of obtaining a review of the order passed under Sections 280 and 281 of the old Code (corresponding to Order 21 Rule 60 or Rule 61).