TRIVENI DEVI BHUTA Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L . I have brushed aside objections of the counsel against bearing the matter today as gross in justice has been caused in this case by letting the matter lie burried for the last 12 years in the heaps of forgotten, if not discarded, records of this Court.

(2.) COUNSEL are heard on merits and I proceed to render my decision to dispose of the case finally on merits. Lamentably I have to observe that on 7 -9 -1983 there was an order passed in this case by this Court adjourning the case "sine die" by which the records were consigned to the deep abyss of inviolable oblivion from which it was difficult to resurrect the matter unless I had reacted to the situation when it came to my notice on perusing the statement of pending cases, on the same being called for, that it was the lone case of 1973, farthest in point of time. However, nothing more need be said on that aspect and at this late stage, I do not like to lay blame at the door of any counsel for the mishap and would cop -elude merely saying that it is my duty as dearly as possible to undo the harm that has ensued to the course of Justice by the long lapse of time.

(3.) THE short facts of this case are that there was a decree passed in favour of Firm Gopaldas Laxminarain for a sum of Rs. 1,28,776 -03 against the State of M. P. The decretal amount was duly deposited by the judgment debtor in the Executing Court and on such deposit having been made half the amount was withdrawn by a partner of the firm (Bhagwandas Sethi) and when the remaining amount was lying deposited in the Court claim thereto was laid by several applications made by several other creditors of the Firm and, indeed, the question arose as to whether the remaining amount ought to be paid to the other partner of the decree -holder firm, namely Hari -Kishandas Bhuta. whose legal representatives are petitioners before in this case, or the amount had to be distributed rateably among the aforesaid claimants. I earned District Judge, in whose Court execution was levied, dealt with the question in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the judgment. However, before me the only point which is canvassed by Shri Dubey is that the Executing Court expressed erroneous view of law in holding that the State's right to lay claim to the amount as one of creditors was valid and could be entertained in virtue of the provisions of Section 155 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code (for short. the Code) The admitted position on facts is that of the three claimants. Firm Nandram Naraindas and Bhind Co -operative Bank, Bhind, based their claims on decrees passed in their favour against Firm Gopaldas Laxminarain by Civil , Courts while in the case of State of M.P. there were no such decree and the claim was based on a revenue recovery certificate. Shri Dubey has rightly contended, according to me, that what was decided by the learned District Judge was a tangential question by -passing the core of the matter in as much as no decision was rendered by him on the question of State's right to claim attachment of any part of the decretal amount on the basis of the revenue recovery certificate without following the relevant provisions of law, the decision being confind to the question as to whether State could have priority over the claim of other creditors in the matter of disbursement of the amount lying in deposit in the Executing Court.