POLISETTI SRI LAKSHMAMMA Vs. ALAPATI RAJARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judges Court, Guntur, allowing E. a. 854/68, in O. S. 56/66.

(2.) That is a petition filed by the 1st respondent in the Court below for sending for a sum of Rs. 8,925.95 from O. S. 124/67 on the file of the same court to the credit of O. S. 56/66.

(3.) The materials facts of the case are not in dispute. The 1st respondent in the revision petition filed O. S. 56/66 in the Subordinate Judges Court, Guntur for recovery of money due to him on a promissory note from the 2nd respondent. At that time the judgment-debtor had no sons, but a son was born to him after the filing of the suit. Pending the suit and before the judgment, the 1st respondent got a house belonging to the 2nd respondent attached. The suit was later decreed. In execution of the decree the 1st respondent got the house property sold on 5-12-1966. The petitioner before me filed another suit O. S. 124/67, against the 2nd respondent on the file of the same Court on the foot of a promissory note and obtained a decree. But by the time he filed the suit a son was son to the debtor. The son was also impleaded as a party. After obtaining the decree the petitioner attached the same house property that was under attachment in O. S. 56/66. A creditor filed L. P. 6/67 for adjudicating the 2nd respondent as insolvent. Even by that time the house property was sold in Court auction for an amount of Rs. 30,219 after deducting the poundage. That was standing to the credit of O. S. 56/66. The petitioner got attached a portion of the amount out of the half share belonging to the judgment-debtors son, which was in the Court deposit, because the other half-share belonging to the judgment-debtor, who had been declared an insolvent, was retained in court for the benefit of the general body of creditors. That was done pursuant to the order made in E. A. 44/68. Then the petitioner filed E. A. 427/68 to send for the amount from O. s. 56/66 to the credit of his own suit. He however, did not make the 1st respondent a party to this petition. The Court allowed E. A. No. 427/68 and in pursuance of the order therein the amount of Rs. 8,000.00 and odd was credited to O. S. 124/67. Coming to know of this the 1st respondent filed Ex. A. 854/68 seeking an order to send back the amount wrongly credited to O. S. 124/67 out of the sale proceeds on O. S. 56/66 and to distribute half of the sale proceeds representing the minors share rateably between himself and the decree-holder in O. S. 124/67. The petitioner also filed E. A. 581/69 for the issue of a cheque for the amount already brought to the credit of O. S. 124/67. The Court below heard E. A. 854/68 along with E. A. 581/69 and upholding the contentions of the 1st respondent granted E. A. 854/68 and dismissed E. A. 581/69. The present revision petition has been filed against the order allowing E. A. 854/68. I am informed that the petitioner has filed another revision petition against the dismissal of his E. A. 581/69 also, but that has not been brought up before me now.