DUNGARMALL AGARWALLA Vs. AMIYA KUMAR CHATTOPADHYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule was obtained by Dungarmall Agarwalla who stood surety for producing certain motor car which was attached on an application under Order 38 Rule 5of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment before judgment. The present opposite party No. 1 Amiya Kumar Chattopadhya, instituted Money Suit No. 14 of 1947 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dhubri, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,647/ - and on and application for attachment before judgment, the car belonging to the defendant, who is opposite party, No. 2 M/s. Mazumdar BrOrs. , was attached and the same was kept in the zimma of the petitioner Dungarmall Agarwalla.

(2.) MR . K. P. Sen appearing for the opposite party -decree holder argued that no revision petition would lie but an appeal would be competent. In view, however, of the fact that on merits I am going to dismiss the application, I do not propose to examine the preliminary objection raised. The learned Additional Judge has dealt with the facts -in detail and the only point that arises is whether the case is governed by Order 21 Rule 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the attachment should be considered to be released in regard to the motor car put in the zimma of the petitioner Dungarmall Agarwalla. There is marked difference in the view held by the Calcutta and the Allahabad High Courts and the Madras High Court and some other, High Courts that followed the Madras decision.