AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 429 wordsHombe Gowda, J.—A preliminary objection has been raised about the maintainability of the appeal. It is whether a regular appeal is maintainable against an order passed under Order 20, Rule 11(2), Code of Civil Procedure, permitting or refusing the judgment-debtor to pay the amount of the decree in installments.
There is no reported decision on this Court on the point. The point arose for consideration in Mis. Appeal No. 53/54 but was not decided. In - ''Chandra Nath v. Sahadabia Kumarin'' 52 Cal WN 440 (A) Harriet C. J. of the Calcutta High ''Court dealing with (he question as to whether an appeal against an order passed under Order 20, Rule 11(2), Code of Civil Procedure, would lie has observed thus:
On the other side it is urged that this is not an order relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction, of the decree, but merely relates to postponement of the decree, in other words postponement of the satisfaction of the decree or the discharge of the decree. It is an order which is most closely connected with the mode of execution, the mode of discharge and the mode pf satisfaction and that being so it seems to me clearly to be an order falling within Section 47. This has been so held by a Bench of Rmgoon High Court in - ''Abdul Karim v. Maung San Kyaw'' AIR 1932 Rang 54 (B).
His Lordship held that a regular appeal against an order passed under Order 20, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, was maintainable. To the same effect is a decision reported, in AIR 1932 Rang 54 (B), a decision of a Division Bench. Dealing with the question as to whether an appeal against an order passed under Order 20, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, is competent it-was observed thus:
On the question whether or not an appeal lies I see no reason to differ from the opinion expressed in the case of - ''Sava Hattie v. Ma Pwa Saw'' AIR 1926 Rang 192 (C), and I would hold that an appeal lies.
Their Lordships following the earlier decision of the Rangoon High ''Court reported in AIR 1926 Rang 192 (C), lipid that an appeal against an order passed under Order 20, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, was competent. It is thus clear that the present appeal filed by the at Appellant is maintainable and has been protected, It is therefore directed that the should be registered as a second appeal. Appellant will be heard regarding the question court for payable on the memorandum of appeal.