HASTIMAL Vs. F LALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition is the claimant in E.A. No. 30 of 1965 in E.P. No. 3 of 1965. The E.P. was filed in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 65 of 1964 on the file of the 3rd Additional Judge. City Civil Court at SecUnderabad.

(2.) The 1st respondent, F. Lalchand, obtained a decree against respondents 2 and 3, the contractors, who agreed on contract to execute five items of work with the Government of Mysore. Towards the cost of construction of the works, certain amounc was in deposit with the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. at Raichur and it is out of that amount, the amount due towards that decree was attached. Then the petitioner, Hastimal, filed E.A. No. 30 of 1965 claiming that the amount belonged to him and not to the original contractors and prayed that the attachment in respect of the amounts in the hands of the Executive Engineer may be vacated. That petition was opposed by the decree-holder. It may be stated that the amount which is in excess of what was actually attached in execution of this decree is in deposit with the Executive Engineer. Pending these proceedings, the attached amount is kept with the said officer, that is, the Executive Engineer. P.W.D. at Raichur.

(3.) The claim of the petitioner to the amount attached rested mainly on the registered general power of attorney dated 6th April, 1964 a copy of which is marked as Exhibit A-9. The petitioner also contended that there was no valid attachment under Order 21, rule 52, Civil Procedure Code, inasmuch as the decree sought to be attached was not got transferred by the decree-holder to the Court in the State of Mysore having jurisdiction over the officer holding the money. The lower Court overruled these two objections and dismissed the claim petiticn. Hence this revision petition is filed by the claimant.