Shakir Husain vs Chandoo Lal And Ors. on 22 July, 1931
39, The first is that we have been pressed with the decision in Badri Prasad v. Chokhe Lal. In that case cloth was attached and handed over to the custody of one Badri Prasad. The commissioner made a report to the Court stating that he had made over the property to Badri Prasad and had completed the performance of the task allotted to him. It was found by the learned Judges, and this was largely the basis of their eventual decision, that the commissioner i. e. the attaching officer, did not ask for or obtain any "permission." At a later date Badri Prasad appears to have endeavoured to hand over his responsibilities to another person who is at p. 563 of the report referred to as the custodian and who died. But the Courts below naturally would not recognize Badri Prasad's right to so hand over his responsibilities, and he was treated as the person to whom the property had been entrusted. Eventually the suit in which the attachment was made was dismissed, but the attaching officer failed to secure the return of the property. Badri Prasad objected that he was not responsible to the Court as he was not an officer of the Court; but a decree was passed against him. Badri Prasad then came to this Court in civil revision making Chokhe Lal, the decree-holder, the opposite party. The Court considered that the attaching officer should also be a party, and after having so made him a party eventually set aside the decree passed against Badri Prasad and substituted therefor a decree making the attaching officer liable for the loss. "We are not told in the report how the property came to be lost.