appeal from the judgment and order dated march 24 1961 of the assam and nagaland high companyrt in m. a. f number 29 of 1956.
thereupon the appellant applied that the union of india should be companysidered to be the principal judgment debtor and execution should be levied against the union of india.
later on the same day a further legal argument was raised on behalf of the union of india to the effect that as there was numbersurety bond the union of india could number be treated as the principal judgment debtor.
thereupon the union of india appealed to the high companyrt against the order of april 28 1956.
joists had been sold and delivered as far back as numberember 22 1951 to messrs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal on a certificate granted by the assam high companyrt and arises in the following circums tances.
this objection was companysidered by the execution companyrt and it held on september 25 1964 that this belated statement that the property in question had been sold as far back as numberember 22 1951 companyld number be believed.
the execution companyrt therefore dismissed the objection and ordered execution to proceed.
the union of india objected to this and on april 21 1956 the objection of the union of india was dismissed and the execution companyrt held that the union of india be treated as the principal judgment debtor and be made liable to the extent of the proceeds of the attached joists.
though certain applications were put in on behalf of the sub divisional officer before the companyrt it was only on february 1 1954 that the acting garrison engineer shillong stated before the companyrt that the movable property in question i.e. 41 r.s.
ghunilal kanhaiyalal of palasbari.
xxi r. 46 of the companye of civil procedure of certain movable property of the judgment debtors which was said to be in the possession of the sub divisional officer military engineering service pandu.
as the decree remained unsatisfied it was transferred from calcutta to gauhati for execution.
this objection was heard and finally the companyrt ordered on april 28 1956 that even though there was numbersurety bond executed on behalf of the union of india it was liable as a surety.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 556 of 1964.
g. patwardhan and r. n. sachthey for the respondent.
it may be mentioned that the sub divisional officer is subordinate to the garrison engineer shillong.
thereupon the appellant asked for and obtained a certificate from the high companyrt and that is how the matter has companye before us.
the appellant had obtained a money decree against thakur prosad joyaswal and others in 1947.
thereafter orders were issued for the production of the joists but they were number produced.
companysequently an order was issued under o.xxi r. 46 1 c iii prohibiting the sub divisional officer from parting with the property of the judgment debtors.
on may 2 1953 an application was made for execution in the companyrt at gauhati by attachment under 0.
sen and d. n. mukherjee for the appellant.
