KAILAS NATH DUTT Vs. RAMDHAN MITTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that the property in question in the suit had been attached in execution of a decree for about rupees 50, and the day fixed for the sale was the 15th July 1865. Previously to the day of sale the debtor had sold the property to the plaintiff in this case, and from the sale proceeds paid the whole amount for which the property had been attached. It is clear, therefore, that the whole of the decree-holder's decree, for which the attachment was taken out, had been satisfied, and the decree-holder took the money; and therefore it appears to me that he could not object to the sale which had been made, nor ask the Court to continue the attachment on account of other sums which might fall due on his kistbandi. And though the Moonsiff did accede to his request to continue the attachment, yet, as the sum for which the attachment; had been made had been realized, the decree of the decree-holder mast be considered to have been satisfied.

(2.) I think, therefore, that the judgment of the lower appellate Court should be upheld, and the special appeal dismissed with costs.

(3.) I also would affirm the decision of the lower appellate Court, and with costs. I think that the Judge was right in his interpretation of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Anand Lal Das v. Radhamohan Saha 2 B.L.R. (F.B.) 49, and that that decision does support the principle on which the Judge has acted. The Pull Bench held substantially that an attachment is only for the purpose of levying the money due under the particular decree," under which the attachment is made, and that the object of section 240 of Civil Procedure Code is to secure the execution of the decree, and to prevent the attachment from being rendered worthless.