Mallidi Dorayya v. Satti Veerayya

1. We can dispose of this appeal on only one of the grounds in the appeal memo, the fifth, and we therefore express no opinion on the others. The order under appeal is one refusing to raise the attachment of the property of the defendant-appellant in execution of respondent's decree. The appeal has been resisted on the ground that appellant had notice to appear on 14th August 1915 and show cause against the attachment and that he appeared accordingly, but, that the Court after considering his contention, that the decree was satisfied, made an order for attachment which, it is contended, debars him from subsequent objection on any ground.

2. There is no doubt regarding the facts: and following Mungul Pershad Dichit v. Grija Kant Lahiri(1), we must hold that the order was conclusive. Argument to the contrary has been based on the fact that the order was passed without reference to the plea of imitation now relied on and in fact without its being submitted to the Court. We do not think it necessary to go through the authorities cited to show, that, in such circumstances, the propriety of the order can be questioned by a subsequent petition, because they all relate to attempts to question it in subsequent distinct proceedings, suits or execution petitions, not as here in the same proceeding at a later date. To allow appellant's contention would deprive the decision reached at any particular stage in an execution proceeding of finality and enable the judgment-debtor to protract that proceeding indefinitely. Law and convenience being against him, the appeal must fail. The respondent, however has succeeded on a point not taken in the lower Courts. We therefore dismiss the appeal but in the circumstances without costs.

S.N/R.K

3. Appeal dismissed.