KHETRAMOHAN NAIK Vs. SRI JAGANNATH MAHAPRABHU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a decree -holder's petition in revision against an order of the learned Munsif of Puri, releasing a sum of Rs. 7000/ - from attachment on a petition filed under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure by opposite party No. 1. The facts are these. There was a personal decree obtained against opposite party No. 2, the judgment debtor, and the decree -holder proceeded to execute the said personal decree against opposite party No. 2 who was the marfatdar of opposite party No. 1, the deity. The sum of Rs. 7000/ - attached by the decree -holder in Ex. Case No. 55/54 belongs to the claimant opposite party No. 1, which at the time of the attachment was in possession of the judgment -debtor as marfatdar of the claimant. The claimant therefore prayed for the release of the said money from attachment. The contention of the decree -holder was that the money attached, belongs to the judgment -debtor who was in possession of the same at the time of attachment on his own behalf and On behalf of the claimant, opposite party No. 1.

(2.) THE learned Munsif after having considered the case very carefully came to the conclusion that there were extensive properties standing in the name of opposite party No. 1, and similarly opposite party No. 2 has got extensive properties standing in his own name, and the income out of these properties are amalgamated and is kept as the common property of the deity and opposite party No. 2. The money in question was stolen from Math Berhampur Khamar. In the first information report Ex. A, it was stated that the money in question was stolen from the iron chest of Mahant Sidha Kamalnayan Ramanuj Das. Some argument was advanced that the money really belonged to opposite party No. 2 and the claimant had nothing to do with it. The learned Munsif found that the Khamar does not belong to opposite party No, 2 but it belongs to opposite party No. 1, the deity. In order to prove that this amount of Rs, 7000/ -, belonged to opposite party No. 2, certain account -books were produced, but they have been disbelieved by the learned Munsif who however came to the conclusion that the money attached belongs to the claimant, and the judgment -debtor Jointly and was in possession of the judgment -debtor, partly on his own account and partly on account of the claimant opposite party No. 1. 0rder 21 Rule 60 Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Patna High Court and is still being followed by this Court runs as fallows: