SALAM CHAND KANNYRAM Vs. BHAGWAN DAS CHILHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case out of which this Rule has arisen are these: The petitioner who obtained the Rule brought a suit on the Original Side of this Court against the opposite party for Rs. 52,582 odd on the 27 November 1922. On the 25 June 1923 he applied that certain properties of the opposite party might be attached before judgment. These properties were apparently in the district of Nadia though that is not stated in the petition where the facts are set out vary incompletely. The properties were duly attached on the 12 July 1923. The suit was decreed on the 18 February 1924. There was no appeal. Then on the same date, which again it is impossible to ascertain either from the petition or from the learned Counsel who has appeared for the petitioner, the decree was sent to the District Judge at Nadia for execution and the property was advertised for sale on the 8 February 1926. A claim was then filed in the executing Court on the 26 January 1926 by one Bhagwan Das alleging that the property belonged to him. The petitioner then appeared and objected that the Nadia Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

(2.) That Court held that he had the jurisdiction to entertain the application and ordered the parties to produce their evidence. Against this order of the learned Subordinate Judge the petitioner has moved this Court under Section 115 and obtained this Rule. It has been contended by the opposite party that the order being an interlocutory order cannot be dealt with under Section 115.

(3.) Speaking for myself and with great respect to the learned Judges who have held otherwise I have no hesitation in holding that Section 115, Civil P.C., has no application whatever to interlocutory orders. Here Section 115 was quoted.