MAHAMED RASEK Vs. TAHIDUNNESSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside on such terms as to this Court may seem proper, or such other order passed as to this Court may seem fit.

(2.) The order made by the Court below was that an inventory of the moveable properties claimed by the plaintiff be prepared by the Nazir after notice to the Pleaders of all parties. This Order was passed upon an application purporting to have been made under Order XXXIX, Rule 7 (1) (a), which provides that the Court may, on the application of any party to a suit and on such terms as it thinks fit, make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of any property which is the subject-matter of such suit or as to which any question may arise therein.

(3.) The order made by the Court below was not for preservation or inspection of any property but for making an inventory of certain moveable properties which are described in the schedule to the plaint. So far as they are concerned, no inventory is required; and it was not alleged in the application made to the Court below that there were moveable properties other than those described in the plaint.