JAGADISH CHANDRA SHAHA Vs. KRIPA NATH SHAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioners obtained a decree against certain judgment-debtors. The opposite party had obtained a decree against certain judgment-debtors, who are not exactly identical with those of the petitioners, and had applied for rateable distribution. The Munsiff of Dacca refused this application on the ground that the judgment debtors were not identical. Against this order, the opposite party appealed to the District Judge; and the District Judge, following the decision in Gonesh Das Bagria V/s. Shiva Lakshman Bhakat (1903) I.L.R. 30 Calc. 583, set aside the Munsif's order and directed that the opposite party should share in the rateable distribution.

(2.) The petitioner has applied to this Court under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, and has obtained a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge should not be set aside on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction.

(3.) It is clear that under Section 588 of the Civil Procedure Code, an order passed under Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code is not ordinarily appealable; but it is argued on behalf of the opposite party that such an order comes within the scope of Section 244 and is therefore open to appeal. Reference has been made to the case of Prosunno Kumar Sanyal v. Kali Das Sanyal (1892) I.L.R. 19 Calc. 683; L.R. 19 I.A. 166, in which it was laid down that Section 244 should be construed with liberality and that a question, which concerned an auction purchaser at an execution sale, was none the less a question coming within that section.