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 · 142 wordsA preliminary objection is taken on the ground that the order appealed against was passed u/s 243 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that no
appeal lies against such an order. We do not think that this contention can be upheld. Following the reasoning and the rulings in the cases of
Ghazidin v. Fakir Bakhsh ILR 7 AIL 73 Kassa Mai v. Gopi ILR 10 AIL 389 Steel & Go. v. Ichchamoyi Chowdharain ILR 13 Cal. 111 we hold
that an appeal lies. We therefore disallow the preliminary objection.
2.As to the merits, the District Judge states that he does not consider that the appellant will have difficulty in recovering any sum that may now be
paid over to the respondent in execution of the decree. The decree was passed as long ago as 1883. We dismiss this appeal with costs