JOGESH CHANDRA CHAUDHURY Vs. HEMENDRA KUMAR ROY CHAUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Vakil for the respondent that no appeal lies against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge.

(2.) The question arises in connection with an order of the learned Subordinate Judge,. which is dated the 8 of February 1921. The order was made in execution proceedings.

(3.) In order to explain the order of the 8 February 1921 it is necessary to refer to two previous orders: It appears that on the 3 of January 1921 the judgment-debtor filed a petition praying for time to file an objection, and time was allowed; and, on the 3 of February 1921, the judgment-debtor filed an application praying for stay of the issue of the sale proclamation, and his prayer was allowed, and an order was made that the issue of the sale proclamation should be stayed pending disposal of the objection under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. The ground of the objection was that the judgment-debtor was alleging that the properties which it was proposed to sell were of much higher value than the decretal amount and that it would not be necessary to sell all the properties which were proposed to be sold. It then appears that after the order was made for stay of the issue of the sale proclamation, the decree-holder's Pleader on the 8 February 1921 made an application to the learned Subordinate Judge, and the learned Vakil for the appellant in this Court informs as that that application was made ex parte; the learned Subordinate Judge, in spite of the order which he had made on the 3 of February, proceeded to make a further order to this effect: Let sale proclamation be issued. In the meantime I shall hear the objection of the judgment- debtor." It is from that order that the present appeal has been filed.