JUDGEMENT
A. P. Srivastava, J. -
(1.)These are two connected execution first appeals and may be conveniently disposed of by the same judgment.
(2.)One Bidhi Chand filed a suit for recovery of money against Bedi Lal and others. After filing the suit he applied for the attachment before judgment of certain properties belonging to Bedi Lal defendant. The properties included a share in a grove and certain machinery installed in that grove. Attachment before judgment was ordered, and a Vakil Commissioner was appointed to make the attachment. He went to the spot, attached the properties, and put them in the supurdigi of one Mohammad Gulsher Khan. The latter executed a supurdnama in respect of the property. The suit was ultimately decreed, and an execution application. bearing execution case no. 39 of 1955 was filed to execute the decree. The decree was satisfied in part and by an order dated the 9th of Oct. 1953 the execution application was struck off in part satisfaction. In course of the execution case it was alleged by the judgment-debtor Bedi Lal that some parts of the attached machinery which had been put in the custody of Mohammad Gulsher Khan had been removed and misappropriated by the latter. On the 22nd of Feb. 1956, therefore, the judgment-debtor Bedi Lal made an application that Mohammad Gulsher Khan be made liable for the sum of Rs. 11,000 on account of the missing machinery parts. The application was filed under Sec. 145, C.P.C.
(3.)Mohammad Gulsher Khan objected to the application. He pleaded that the application was not maintainable under Sec. 145, C.P.C. and said that at the time when it had been attached the machinery was not in working order. As regards the flour mill and the weights etc., he said that they had been sold by the Amin on the 9th of Feb. 1956. He also denied having removed any parts as alleged. The learned Civil Judge held, in view of the decision reported in Mathura Das Vs. Hari Shanker, AIR 1949 Allahabad 306 , that the application was maintainable under Sec. 145, C.P.C. He further held on facts that Mohammad Gulsher Khan was responsible for the loss illeged. He determined the amount of the loss for which Mohammad Gulsher Khan was liable as Rs. 979, and allowed the application to that extent. He also awarded to the judgment-debtor. Bedi Lal one-fourth of his costs in the proceedings. Against this order Mohammad Gulsher Khan has filed Ex. F.A. No. 84 of 1958.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.