080-NLR-NLR-V-07-AMADORIS-v.-NENDA.pdf
( 338 )
AMADORIS v. NENDA.
(Adris Mendis, Claimant in Execution.)C. B., GalU, 6,173.
1902.August 4.
Order under s. 244, Civil Procedure Code, releasing property from seizuremade under misapprehension—Power of Supreme Court in revision..
The Supreme Court will exercise its power of revision in order to setaside an order releasing property from seizure, when such order iswholly based on a misapprehension.
A
LAND, Batadandugodawatta, was seized in execution againstthe! judgment-debtors. Several claimants appeared, among
them being one Adris Mendis, whose claim, on the face of it,appeared to be to shares in the land seized. The Commissioner ofRequests, before inquiring into the claims, procured a report and asketch from the vidane arachchi to elucidate the boundaries of theland seized and the lands claimed. This report elicited the fact thatAdris Mendis did not intend to claim the land seized, but onlywished to have his own laDd.^wHich adjoined if and bore the samename, Batadandugodawatta, distinguished. The land seized wascalled by other names as well. oThe claim was subsequentlyinquired into by the Court, another officer having meanwhilesucceeded as. Commissioner of Requests. *'
The claimant and the* writ-holder both produced deeds inevidence. One deed No^ 4,320 produced, not by. the claimant butby the writ-holder and in favour o| a third party, for the purpose03 throwing light on the question of boundaries, related to aone-fourth share in the land seized.
( 384 )
1902. By misapprehension the Commissioner supposed that it wasAugust 4. in favour of the claimant, and on 7th January, 1903, he allowedWbndt J fc*10 claim to the extent of one-fourth. None of the deeds pro-duced by the claimant related to the land seized.
The proctor for the writ-holder on 17th January, 1902, movedthe Court to re-consider the order on the ground that it had beenevidently led into error by inadvertence in supposing that thedeed No. 4,320 was in favour of the claimant.
The Commissioner held he had no power to review his order.
The Supreme Court was then applied to for revision.
Samarawickrama, for the applicants.
«The claimant did not appear though served with a notice.
The Supreme Court varied the order.
4th August, 1902. Wendt, J.—
Upon a writ of execution issued in this case a piece of land wasseized, upon which one Adris Mendis claimed half, one thirty-sixth, and one twenty-fourth as belonging to himself and notto the execution-debtor. Certain deeds were produced at theinquiry in support of the claim, among them a deed bearing'No. 4,320. This was produced for some collateral purpose, becauseit dealt not ..with the land seized, but apparently with anadjoining land; but the Commissioner under a misapprehension. upheld the claimant’s title to one-fourth of the land as thoughthat share had been conveyed by that deed. This Court has beenmoved on behalf of the execution-creditor to set aside that orderin revision.
The Commissioner informs this Court that he was in error indealing with deed No. 4,320, as though it applied to the land inquestion.
The claimant has not appeared in response to the notice ofthe present motion, and I order that the order of the Com-missioner dated 6th January, 1902, be varied by rejecting theclaim of Adris Mendis altogether and directing him to pay theexecution-creditor the costs consequent on the claim.