BASANTA KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE Vs. PANCHU GOPAL DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner obtained four money decrees against the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 and put them into execution in Money Execution Cases Nos. 69 of 1952, 13 of 1953, 37 of 1953 and 38 of 1953 in the 1st Court of the, Subordinate Judge at Alipore. Properties belonging to the judgment-debtors, opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 were sold in Money Execution Case No. 8 of 1953 which had been started by opposite party No. 6 for execution of a decree obtained by him against them for a sum of Rs. 7,970/-. The sale took place on 10-6-1953 and was confirmed on 16-7-1953. On 10-7-1953 the petitioner filed an application for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds of Rs. 8,115/- in respect of his claims in all the four Execution cases. The Court, however, held by its order dated 2-12-1953 that the petitioner was not entitled to rateable distribution in respect of Money Execution Cases Nos. 37 and 38 of 1953 but his prayer for rateable distribution in respect of the other cases should succeed. On that date he passed the following order :

(2.) Before, however, this amount could be determined, a letter was received from the Certificate Officer on 3-2-1954 requesting the Court not to make any payment out of these sale proceeds without notice to him. On 24-8-1954 a notice of attachment under R. 22 of the Rules under the Public Demands Recovery Act was received from the Certificate Officer withholding payment of Rs. 8,115/- until further orders of that Court. In spite of this an order was passed by the Court on 18-11-1954 that the present petitioner would get Rs. 6,281/7/- and the opposite party No. 6 would get Rs. 1,833/9/- out of the sale proceeds. These moneys have not, however, been paid out to these decree-holders in accordance with the order but had been ordered to be remitted to the Certificate Officer in compliance with his request, based on the letter of attachment received in the Court on 24-8-1954.

(3.) The Court below has held that as a result of this notice of attachment the money could not be paid to any of the decree-holders and as this attachment order by the Certificate Officer was in respect of a claim payable to the State of West Bengal, he held that the claim was entitled to priority.