MACDONELL C.J.;—Sivasampoe v. Chelvarayan.
1531Present: Macdonell C.J. and Garvin S.P.J.
SIVASAMPOE v. CHELVARAYAN.
69—D. C. Jaffna, 18,579.
Execution—Decree for money—Seizure of decree against plaintiff—Applicationby plaintiff to execute decree—Civil Procedure Code, s. 234.
Where a decree has been seized, process in execution of that decreeis available only to the person seizing it. The original judgment-creditorcannot take out execution under it.
PPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Jaffna. The plaintiffobtained a decree against the defendant on May 29, 1926, for a
sum of Rs. 4,900. The plaintiff took out writ on August 29, 1926,and realized a sum of Rs. 510. On January 18, 1929, the decree infavour of the plaintiff was seized by an order issued from the District
1 24 N. L. R. 294.
Court of Colombo. On August 6, 1930, the plaintiff applied for andobtained a warrant of arrest against the defendant. The defendant,applied for his release on the ground that the plaintiff had no rightto take out execution after the seizure of the decree and also that he hadsaleable property.
Tiyagarajah, for defendant, appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
November 3, 1931. Macdonnell C.J.—
It is quite clear from a further perusal of' section 234 of the CivilProcedure Code, as interpreted by the case in I. L. R. 24 Calcutta 778,for which we are indebted to Mr. Croos Da Brera, that once a decreehas been seized, process in execution of that decree is only availableto the person seizing it and that the original judgment-creditor underthe decree now seized cannot take out execution under it or avail himselfof it. If that is so the warrant taken out by the plaintiff on August 6,1930, must be set aside as having been irregularly issued and likewisethe attachment of the defendant under that warrant. The warrantis set aside and the attachment is also set aside, and the appeal is allowedwith costs.
Garvin S.P.J.—I agree.
SIVASAMPOE v. CHELVARAYAN