Arunachalam J. Pieris vs Secretary of the Court – clr volume 1 page 008

In the case between the Fiscal (as plaintiff) and a mortgagor-defendant who defaulted under a mortgage bond for Rs. 690.30, the court addressed whether the Secretary, acting in the capacity of the Fiscal and executing a mortgage writ, was obligated under section 26 of the Fiscal’s Ordinance to take security or proceed with parate execution against a defaulting purchaser, and whether the absence of such measures justified recalling the writ. It was held that the District Court’s recall order, based on alleged procedural omissions by the Secretary, could not be sustained. The holding reaffirmed the principle that the execution process is governed by the duties statutorily imposed under the Fiscal’s Ordinance, and that procedural irregularities not raised contemporaneously do not constitute g