HARIHAR KANT BHATTA Vs. RAMA PANDU SHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two points of law have been urged in support of this second appeal. The facts stated shortly are these: The property had been sold by the Court on the 17th January 1908 in execution of a decree against the respondent. On the 8 of February 1908 he applied to the Court to set aside the sale. That application was made upon the ground that the people of the village where he resided and where the property was situate, had so conspired as to bring about the sale for under- value. The application (Exhibit 16) was rejected. On the 15 February 1908 the respondent applied to the Court under Section 310- A and deposited the amount as required by that section. The appellant objected upon the ground that the application could not be entertained, because the judgment-debtor (respondent) having made an application under Section 311 was debarred by the provisions of Section 310-A from claiming any relief under the latter section.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge allowed the objection and rejected the respondent's application under Section 310-A. The District Court, on appeal by the respondent, has reversed the order of the Subordinate Judge. It was argued before the District Judge that no appeal lay against the order of the Subordinate Judge. The District Judge relying upon the decision of this Court in Pita Mati V/s. Chuniall Harakchand31 B. 207; Bom. L.R. 15 held an appeal lay.

(3.) Before us it has been argued that the District Judge was Wrong in holding that an appeal lay to his Court against the Subordinate Judge's order under Section 310-A. We agree with the District Judge. The case is similar to that of Pita Mati v. Chunilal Harakchand 31 B. 207; Bom. L.R. 15.