The following judgments of the High Court1 were delivered;
Ainslie, J.:—
A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that no appeal lies in such a case as this, the question at issue being between two decree-holders and not between the parties to a single suit.
This Court held in the case reported in 2 Weekly Reporter, 13 Mis. Joge Narain Singh v. Bhugbano, that sections 256 and 257 do not apply to a third party, and this is the view which I have always taken of those sections.
It has, however, been pointed out that there is a case in 11 Bombay, 5—Krishnarav Venkatesh v. Vasudev Anant, to the contrary; but it seems to me that we ought to follow the ruling of this Court in the matter, more especially as it is in conformity with the rule laid down in the New Civil Procedure Code, section 311.
I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.
Kennedy, J.:—
I quite agree. Even if I did not agree with the case in 2 Weekly Reporter, 13 Mis., I would have thought myself bound to follow it. I am inclined to believe that the construction there put on sections 256 and 257 was perfectly correct; but it would be idle now, when the New Procedure Code has expressly provided for the case, even if my opinion were different, to proceed to have that which has hitherto been deemed correct law reviewed.