Richard Garth, C.J. and Macpherson, J.
1. We think that this rule should be made absolute.
2. The question which the Judge has decided in the Court below was not the proper subject of an appeal, unless it was 'a decree' within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. And it would not be 'a decree' within the meaning of that section unless it came under Sub-section (a) or (b) or (c) of Section 244.
3. The appellant in the Court below, Srimondel Doss, contends here that it does come within Sub-section (c), because it is 'a question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives.' He argues that the party who applies to execute the decree is 'a representative of the plaintiff in the suit.'
4. We think, however, that the question is not one which can properly be said to have arisen between the parties to the suit. It is not a question between the plaintiff and the defendant, or between the representatives of either the plaintiff and the defendant; but it has arisen between the plaintiff in this suit and a person who, under a sale which took place in another suit, has professed to buy the plaintiff's interest in this suit.
5. He is a person, therefore, who claims the plaintiff's interest in this suit adversely to the plaintiff himself, and who is trying to avail himself of the decree, which the plaintiff has obtained in this suit.
6. The question, therefore, is not one between the plaintiff and the defendant, nor in any sense one between the parties to the suit; it is a question between the plaintiff and a stranger to the suit.
7. That being so, we think that no appeal lay to the District Judge. The rule will therefore be made absolute; the decree of the District Judge will be reversed, and that of the Subordinate Judge restored with costs.