VISHALA SAHAKARA PARAPATHI SANGHAM Vs. SESHAVARARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first and second respondents obtained a decree against the third and fourth respondents on 13-8-1959. According to that decree, the amount was to be paid on 31-12-1959, They were, however, permitted to attach the property of the said respondents. In pursuance of that direction, an execution petition was filed by them on 26-10-1959 and three items of property were attached on 29-10-1959. The Execution Petition was closed on 18-11-1959 continuing attachment on the ground that the time for payment has not arrived.

(2.) While the matter stood thus, the petitioner-Co-operative Society moved the Deputy Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act against the third and fourth respondents for realisation of some amount. An award was passed in favour of the Co-operative Society. In pursuance of that award, the Deputy Registrar attached the self same three items of property on 21-10-1959. One item out of these three items was sold on 6-2-1960- for an amount of Rs. 1100/- and the amount was recovered that day only. On 19-2-1960 respondents 1 and 2 filed an application under S, 73 C P. C. with die Deputy Registrar asking for rateable distribution. That application was dismissed on 21-3-1960. In the meanwhile, an application under S. 73 C. P. C. was filed before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Gudivada on 24-2-1960 requesting the Court to send for the amount lying with the Deputy Registrar and distribute the same rateably between the Co-operative Society and the 1st and 2nd respondents. This petition was resisted by the Co-operative Society on various grounds. The Deputy Registrar also took exception on the ground that he is not a Subordinate Court to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Gudivada and that no order directing him to deposit the amount can therefore be issued against him. The lower Court rejecting the contentions of both the Deputy Registrar as well as the petitioner before me directed the Deputy Registrar to send the amount to the Court for purposes of rateable distribution.

(3.) The principal contentions of Mr. T. Dasaradha Ramiah. the learned Counsel for the petitioner are that there was no execution petition filed before the asets were realised before the Subordinate Judge, Bandar who passed the decree in favour of the first and second respondents, that thy said Subordinate Judge's Court did not transfer that decree for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge Gudivada and that the Subordinate Judge's Court had no power to call for the amount under i. 63 C. P. C. as the Deputy Registrar is neither a Court nor in any case a subordinate Court to the Subordinate Judge's Court. It is also contended chat the execution petition for rateable distribution was filed long after the amount was received by the Deputy Registrar and therefore under S. 73, the first and second respondents cannot share the amount.