MAHIDHAR PRASAD Vs. A I R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal, from proceedings in execution, under Section 47, Civil P. C., has been filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor. There was a decree against him passed in Nagpur for a sum of Rs. 447/-. There were a number of executions taken against the appellant, and those executions were transferred from Nagpur Court to Gaya Court. The objection under Section 47 taken by the judgment-debtor was that, as one of the previous executions was without jurisdiction, the present execution, which was taken in 1951, was barred by limitation.

(2.) Both the courts below have negatived the objection on one ground or other.

(3.) Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has taken a preliminary bjection to the effect that, under Section 102, Civil P. C,, no second appeal lay to this Court because the suit in which the decree was passed was of the nature cognizable by courts of Small Causes. The amount of the decree shows that the suit must have been for even a lesser amount, namely, less than Rs. 500/-; and if that be so, no second appeal would He from proceedings in execution of such a decree. Section 102 of the Code says that no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed five hundred rupees. In my judgment, if no second appeal lies from a decree in the suit itself, no second appeal would certainly lie from proceedings in execution of a decree passed in such a suit. If any authority were needed, I would refer to the cases of -- 'Mangar Singh v. Khobhari Rai', AIR 1918 Pat 624 (A) and -- 'Sant Prasad v. Bhawani Prasad', AIR 1921 All 55 (2) (B). The preliminary point, therefore, succeeds, and I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.