Kedar Nath Dutt v. Seeva Veyana Rana Luchmun Chetty

This application comes clearly within section 483. Under that section, if the defendant has gone away leaving property within the jurisdiction of the Court within which the suit is pending, the Court may order “any portion of his property” to be attached Now, “any portion of his property” does not mean any portion of the property of the defendant which is within the jurisdiction; for in that case the Legislature would have so expressed itself, or would have used the apt expression, “any portion of property.” Not being limited in any way, the word “property” must be taken, as it stands, to mean any property whatever belonging to the defendant, especially when we see that the Code provides for the attachment of property situated without the jurisdiction. This being the case, if we read section 483 and lection 648 together, two conclusions at once follow:—(1) that if defendant has gone away leaving property within the jurisdiction of this Court, in which the suit is pending, this Court may order the attachment of that property; and (2) that this Court may send a copy of the order to the Court within whose jurisdiction there is any other property of the defendant, and have that property attached. Where, as in this case, the defendant has no property within the jurisdiction of the Court within which the suit is pending, the first of the above conclusions, of course, does not apply. But that does not invalidate the second one which is not necessarily dependent on it. This Court may still send a copy of the order to the Court at Madura, and cause to be attached the property there which belongs to the defendant.

Pontifex, J.:—

I am against Mr. Piffard on the construction of section 483. The words of that section, which must be read strictly, are as follows:

“If at any stage of any suit the plaintiff satisfies the Court by affidavit that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him,

“(a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or to remove the same from the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is pending, or

“(b) has quitted the jurisdiction of the Court, leaving therein property belonging to him,

“the plaintiff may apply to the Court to call upon the defendant to furnish security to satisfy any decree that may be passed against him in such suit; and, on his failing to give such security, to direct that any portion of his property shall be attached until the further order of the Court.”

In the first place, the defendant does not fall within clause (b). He has not quitted the jurisdiction of this Court leaving any property within the jurisdiction. The word “property” in the latter part of the section means the property mentioned in the first part of the section in clauses (a) and (b). It means property within the jurisdiction. Section 477 also applies to property within the jurisdiction of the Court. I am bound to construe the section strictly, and must refuse the application.

Application refused.