BADIAR RAHAMAN Vs. SARADA KANTA DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule in my opinion is concluded by the judgments in the case of Jogindra Nath Chatterjee V/s. Monmotho Nath Ghose [1912] 18 C.L.J. 566. No doubt in later cases, notably in the case of Dhirendra Nath Roy V/s. Kamini Kumar Pal A.I.R 1924 Cal. 786, it has been pointed out that an attaching creditor after he has obtained his decree is a person, who comes within the purview of the amended words of Rule 90, Order 21, Civil P. C.. THIS later case, however, distinguishes the case of Jogendra V/s. Monmotho [1912] 18 C.L.J. 566 and in no way touches the authority of the earlier case. In this state of the authorities I am bound to follow the case of Jogendra Nath Chatterjee V/s. Monmotho Nath Ghose [1912] 18 C.L.J. 566. That being so, this Rule fails and must be discharged.

(2.) IN the circumstances, I make do order as to costs.