Chakrapani Padhi And Others (Petitioners) v. Krushno Naiko (Counter-Petitioner)

JUDGMENT

David Grierson Waller, J.

1. Assuming that second appeal lies, which is more than doubtful vide Asimuddi Sheik v. Sundari Bibi [1911] 38 Cal. 339 and Kachu v. Trimbak Khemchand [1920] 44 Bom. 472, no ground has been made out for interference. It is impossible to treat the lodgment schedule as an application of the nature contemplated by Order 21, Rule 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There must be something more than a deposit.