SANTOSH KUMAR MODE Vs. ADAITA BALLAV SATPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Woes of an Indian litigant begin only after he has obtained a decree. Such was the dictum of the Privy Council. The instant case is one of this kind where the decree-holders-petitioners have not been able to realise the fruit of the money decree passed in their favour and against the opposite party in the year 1977 for a sum of Rs. 23,504.87 paise and cost of Rs. 5,120/-. The point canvassed in this revision is a short but interesting question of law.

(2.) . The petitioners put the decree to execution in Execution Case No. 48 of 1978 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara. Ultimately on the prayer of the petitioners, the judgment-debtor opposite party Adaita was arrested and sent to civil prison on 1/11/1987 for a period of three months. When the judgment-debtor was still under detention, the petitioners prayed on 29/08/1987 for attachment and sale of judgment-debtor's movables mentioned in the application for execution. On 31/08/1987 the executing Court ordered issue of writ of attachment, but later, on 3/09/1987 stayed issue of attachment and allowed time for filing of objection, if any, by the judgment-debtor. On 19/09/1987 the judgment-debtor filed his objection. He contended, inter alia, that the decree-holder having not pursued his original prayer for attachment of the movables and instead having prayed for attachment of the movables and instead having prayed for detention in civil prison and since the judgment-debtor was under detention in civil prison, the prayer for attachment and sale of movables does not deserve consideration and should be dismissed. When this matter was pending consideration, the decree-holder on 24/09/1987 made a prayer for detention of the judgment-debtor for a further period of three months after expiry of the period of three months for which he was undergoing detention. On 13/10/1987 judgment-debtor filed his objection to such prayer taking the ground that there is no provision of law under which extension can be allowed. Both the prayers of the decree-holders were heard on 17/10/1987 and rejected by the impugned order dated 24/10/1987.

(3.) This revision is directed against the part of the impugned order which relates to rejection of the prayer for attachment and sale of movables. The other part is rightly not assailed in view of the clear provision of S. 58, C.P.C. limiting the maximum period of detention to three months.