Hira Lal Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........i am also inclined to agree with the sessions judge that no proceedings under section 201 for attachment can be taken by the committee against the accused. i think din muhammad v. municipal committee; amritsar 23 p.r. 1903 cr. shows that under the section claims of this nature, which are hot for any arrears of tax, or fee or for money claimable under the municipal act, cannot be realized through the agency of a magistrate. a fortiori the claim against the petitioner, which can only arise by virtue of an agreement to remain as bailee of property which the committee had seized in order to recover; certain rents due to them, cannot he so recovered.3. i set aside the order of the magistrate directing attachment to issue against the petitioner.

Judgment:

ORDER

Chatterji, J.

1. The previous proceeding's show that the attachment was set aside first by the Magistrate and at all events by this Court on the report of the Sessions Judge on 1st August, 1908, and the goods released. The liability of the petitioner is Conditional clearly on the attachment being maintained. He had custody of the property as attached property, i.e., property which the Committee could sell for realization of their dues. If the attachment falls through, the petitioner's liability necessarily terminates. It has no independent foundation.

2. I am also inclined to agree with the Sessions Judge that no proceedings under Section 201 for attachment can be taken by the Committee against the accused. I think Din Muhammad v. Municipal Committee; Amritsar 23 P.R. 1903 Cr. shows that under the section claims of this nature, which are hot for any arrears of tax, or fee or for money claimable under the Municipal Act, cannot be realized through the agency of a Magistrate. A fortiori the claim against the petitioner, which can only arise by virtue of an agreement to remain as bailee of property which the Committee had seized in order to recover; certain rents due to them, cannot He so recovered.

3. I set aside the order of the Magistrate directing attachment to issue against the petitioner.