Summary Special Appeal from the decision of Mr. T. Sandys, Judge TANGOUR LALL, FATHER AND GUARDIAN OF KASSUB- versus SHAMBUTTEE KOONWAREE, (DEBTOR,) AND LUCHMUN Vakeel of Petitioner-Baboo Unnodapersad Banerjea. THIS case was admitted to summary special appeal on the 16th "The petitioners are two out of three judgment creditors, who obtained decrees against Shambuttee Koonwaree, debtor, whose property had been sold for rupees 39,925, in execution of a former decree against her. After satisfying this decree, the surplus proceeds, amounting to rupees 27,305, were attached by several creditors who had instituted suits against her. The petitioners were amongst these creditors, and, on decrees being passed in their favor, took out execution against the surplus proceeds, and the principal sudder ameen directed payment to be made to them, respectively, of the sums rupees 6,554-13 and rupees 6,911-0-11. Luchimun Sahoo, one of the attaching creditors, whose suit was undecided, appealed against this order to the judge, who, upon the ground that the interests of the attaching creditors, whose suits were still pending and undecided, had been overlooked, and that no preference could be shown to any of the creditors in consequence of his obtaining an earlier decree against the debtor, reversed the principal sudder ameen's order and directed the surplus proceeds to be held in deposit for the satisfaction of the respective claims of all the creditors. "It is now urged by the petitioners, first, that the amount of the decrees passed in their favour exceeded rupees 5,000, and that the See preced. ing case. judge was incompetent to pass an order in the case, as it was JUDGMENT. We are of opinion that the judge had no authority to receive the appeals, as the orders appealed against were in execution of decrees in cases upwards of rupees 5.000 in value. The practice, ever since the promulgation of Act XXV. of 1837, has been to prefer such appeals to this Court; and it was prescribed by Circular Order of 5th June 1838, No. 8 (old edition,) and has been invariably followed since. The rule in Section XXII. Regulation V. of 1831, only refers to cases under rupees 5,000, to which the authority of principal sudder ameens was limited then; but since its extension to indefinite amounts, the course of summary appeal has always corresponded with that prescribed for regular appeal, unless otherwise declared by law. We therefore quash the judge's orders as without jurisdiction, and give costs of this appeal to special respondent. This renders disposal of the second point in the certificate unnecessary. THE 27TH DECEMBER 1858. PRESENT: B. J. COLVIN, ESQ., Judge. D. I. MONEY, ESQ., Officiating Judges. G. LOCH, Esq., CASE NO. 151 OF 1858. Summary Special Appeal from the decision of Mr. T. Sandys, Judge of Bhaugulpore, dated 14th December 1847, reversing a decree of Mr. J. Dacosta, Principal Sudder Ameen of that district, dated 26th November 1857. BURRATEE SAHOO, (DECREEHOLDER,) PETITIONER, versus SHAMBUTTEE KOONWAREE, (DEBTOR,) AND LUCHMUN Vakeels of Petitioner-Moonshee Ameer Alee and Moulvee Vakeel of the Opposite Party, Luchmun Sahoo, (Intervenor,)— FOR grounds of admission to summary special appeal and decision of the Court thereon, see case No. 145 of 1858. Summary Special Appeal from the decision of Mr. W. S. Seton-Karr, FUKEERCHAND MITTER AND MOHESHUREE versus RAMCHURN MITTER AND KUROONAMOYE DASSEE, Vakeel of Petitioners-Baboo Obhoychurn Bose. THIS case was admitted to summary special appeal on the 9th September 1858, under the following certificate recorded by Messrs. H. T. Raikes and J. H. Patton. "On this case coming up, respondents' pleader opposed the hearing of it on the ground that the original decree was passed by the sudder ameen, and that execution of the decree had been committed to the court of the principal sudder ameen, merely because there was no sudder ameen at the time appointed; that the orders passed in execution by the principal sudder ameen were appealable to the judge, but that the rule inculcated by Section V. Act VI. of 1843, was applicable to the orders of the judge; and that no appeal could be preferred therefrom. "As the policy of the law seems to limit the course of appeal in such cases where the original claim has made the case cognizable by the sudder ameen, we admit the special appeal to try whether orders passed in execution, in cases within the competency of sudder ameens, by principal sudder ameens, are on that account open to a special appeal to this Court." JUDGMENT. ameen, no special appeal the orders of the judge appeal from would lie from passed in an the order of the principal sudder ameen relative to the such decree. This suit was disposed of by the sudder ameen. Owing to the execution of absence of that officer, the execution of that decree was transferred to the principal sudder ameen, who passed an order adverse to the decree-holder. The decree-holder appealed to the judge, who |