TAX RO Vs. HANSABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 28th May, 1976, passed by the learned First Addl. Munsiff, Hubli, in Misc. Case No. 70 of 1975. By the said order, the learned Munsiff has partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner under O. 21, r. 46, read with s. 73 of the CPC and has held that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of the judgment debt deposited in the court at C. No. 75, dated April 7, 1975, excluding the amount due to be paid to the decree holder Execution Case No. 18 of 1974 and the claim of the petitioner for payment of the money which is ordered to be paid to the decree-holder in Execution Case No. 18 of 1974 has been rejected.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case for the purpose of deciding the contentions raised in this civil revision petition are as follows : THE vehicle in question bearing registration No. MYK 4448 belonged to the 2nd respondent, who was an assessee of the I.T. Dept. and was in arrears of income-tax to be paid for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71 and 1971-72 to 1972-73 to the tune of Rs. 18,851 including penalty. THE first respondent obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent in O.S. No. 228 of 1972 on the file of the Munsiff, Hubli, for the recovery of a certain sum. This decree was executed in Execution Case No. 18 of 1974 on the file of the 1st Addl. Munsiff, Hubli. In that execution, the aforesaid vehicle in question belonging to the 2nd respondent was sold in the court auction on April 4, 1975, for Rs. 16,000. One Mr. Ganisab, Bellary, was the auction-purchaser.

(3.) ON coming to know of the aforesaid sale, the TRO has filed Misc. Case No. 70 of 1975 under O. 21, r. 46 read with s. 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the amount of Rs. 16,000 deposited under C. No. 75, dated April 7, 1975, in the court be ordered to be paid to the petitioner-applicant in preference to all other individual creditors or decree-holders. The learned Munsiff was of the opinion that Ex. P-1 was sent to the Court of the Principal Munsiff, wherein Execution Case No. 18 of 1974 was not pending : therefore, it was of no consequence; that an intimation sent to the Principal Munsiff's Court did not amount to an intimation to the 1st Addl. Munsiff Court. Regarding the intimation sent as per Ex. P-4, it was held that the said intimation was received by the 1st Addl. Munsiff after the order was passed on April 4, 1975, entering satisfaction of the decree and as such, even though the amount had not been withdrawn by the decree holder on the date of receipt of Form No. ITCP 10, such an amount could not be said to be an amount in the custody of the court because the court not be said to be an amount in the custody of the court because the court had already directed the payment of the amount to the decree-holder. Therefore, the learned Munsiff has directed that the remaining amount only be paid to the TRO.