Badiar Rahaman v. Sarada Kanta Datta

Chakravarti, J.:— This Rule in my opinion is concluded by the judgment in the case of Jogendra Nath Chatterjee v. Monmotho Nath Ghose(1).

2. No doubt in later cases, notably in the case of Dhirendra Nath Roy v. Kamini Kumar Pal*(2), it has been pointed out that an attaching creditor after he has obtained his decree is a person who comes within the purview of the amended words of R. 90, O. 21 of the CPC. This later case, however, distinguishes the case of Jogendra v. Monmotho and in no way touches the authority of the earlier case. In this state of the authorities I am bound to follow the case of Jogendra Nath Chatterjee v. Monmotho Nath Ghose. That being so, this Rule fails and must be discharged.

3. In the circumstances, I make no order to costs.

4. Rule discharged.