NAGENDRA NATH BOSE Vs. MON MOHAN SINGHA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued to show cause why an order of the District Judge of Hooghly dismissing an appeal arising out of certain rent execution proceedings should not be set aside, or such other order made as might be deemed fitting.

(2.) The facts are shortly these: The plaintiffs decree-holders, opposite parties in this rule, instituted a suit for rent against the judgment-debtors opposite parties and the petitioner, who is the receiver of their estate, making the pro forma defendants decree-holders parties with them therein and claiming the sum of Rs. 1,306-15-0. The suit having been decreed the plaintiffs decree-holders executed the decree, the defaulting tenure was put up to sale on 20th November 1928, and one Satish Chandra Singha Chaudhury, the present opposite party 4, purchased the same for Rs. 1,600. Thereupon the petitioner applied to have the sale set aside, but his case was dismissed for default.

(3.) Against that order he preferred an appeal to the District Judge who dismissed it on the ground that it could not be entertained inasmuch as the provision of the amended Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act had not been complied with by making . the deposit required by Sub- section (5) of that section.