KOTLA SATYAM Vs. THAMMANA PERRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have already explained in the judgment just now delivered that the unsuccessful claimant in addition to bringing a claim suit paid the decree amount and 5 per cent under protest into Court under Order 21, Rule 89, and got the sale of the property sot aside and that his petition in execution for restitution of the money so paid was unsuccessful on the ground that the petition did not lie in execution and the remedy, if any, was by separate suit. This civil revision petition arises from the judgment in the small cause suit brought by the claimant as plaintiff (respondent 1) for the recovery of the money which he had paid for setting aside the sale. The defence was that the plaintiff-respondent 1, was not; legally entitled to recover back the money paid under 0. 21, Rule 89. The Small Cause Court has given respondent 1 a decree. The petitioner is the legal representative of the decree-holder in C.S. No. 279 of 1921. The question involved in this petition is an important one by no means free from difficulty. It raises a question of general application and I think it is better that instead of deciding it myself it should be heard and decided by a Bench. The petition will accordingly be posted before a Bench.

(2.) [This petition again coming on for hearing, the Court delivered the following judgment:] Reilly, J.

(3.) This is a petition for the revision of the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur in Small Cause Suit No. 511 of 1926 on his file.