1. We agree with the learned Judges who decided the cases of Debendra Kumar Mandel v. Rup Lall Dass ILR 12 Cal. 546 and Kasinath Das v.
Sadasiv Patnaik ILR 20 Cal. 805
2. The object of attachment is to take the property out of the disposition of the judgment--debtor. Though the omission to attach u/s 274 of the
CPC was an irregularity, we are notable to hold that the irregularity was material or that plaintiff has been prejudiced thereby.
3. It is next contended that the document contains no provision for interest post diem, and that consequently the claim is one for damages and
barred under Article 116 of the Limitation Act. But on the true construction of the document the last clause appears to provide for interest to date
of payment and to make the same a charge on the property; and as interest is not asked for at the enhanced rate, there is no question of reasonable
compensation u/s 74 of the Contract Act, nor is the suit barred under the Limitation Act.
4. This appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
