SARDARNI GURDIAL KAUR Vs. S SATINDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision is directed against the order of the Senior Subordinate judge, Ambala, allowing the respondents application for rateable distribution of the assets of the Judgment-debtor under section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) SO far as the facts of the case are concerned, there is no dispute. The petitioner Sardarni Gurdial Kaur obtained a money decree against her husband sardar Umrao Singh on the 4th of May, 1925. She took out execution of this decree and attached a sum of Rs. 35,000/- belonging to the Judgment-debtor from the Court of the District Judge. This money was lying in the Court of the district Judge on account of compensation received for the acquisition of land by the Government. Objections were raised to this attachment under Order 21 rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Punjab State as well as by Satindar Singh, son of the lady. The plea in the objections was that the amount did not exclusively belong to the judgment-debtor and therefore could not be attached. These objections were rejected on the 31st of October 1962, A review applications against the order of rejection also failed. Satindar Singh filed a suit under Order 21 rule 63 of the code of Civil Procedure but no similar suit was filed by the state of punjab. The State of this suit is not known. In the meantime Satindar Singh obtained money decree for Rs. 46,000/- odd against his father from the Court to subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ambala on the 23rd of May, 1963. He took out the execution of this decree on the 6th of August, 1963,. The assets of the judgment-debtor were received by the Senior Subordinate Judge from the Court of the district Judge in pursuance of the application of Sardarni Gurdial Kaur on the 24th of August, 19632. On the 27th of August, 1963, an application was made by satindar Singh to the Court of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class to the effect that he was entitled to rateable distribution of the amount lying in the Court of the senior Subordinate Judge along with the decree holder Sardarni Gurdial Kaur at whose instance the amount had been attached and withdrawn from the court of the District Judge. This application was later on sent by the Subordinate Judge 1st class to the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge. Before the learned Senior subordinate Judge Sardarni Gurdial Kaur took the objection that Satindar Singh was not entitled to rateable distribution for execution was made to the Court of the senior Subordinate Judge before the assets were received in that Court on 24th of august, 1963. This objection was repelled by the senior Subordinate Judge. He allowed Satindar Singh to share rateably with Sardarni Gurdial Kaur the assets in question. It is against this decision that the present petition for revision has been preferred by Sardarni Gurdial Kaur.

(3.) MR. Ganga Parshad Jain, learned counsel for the lady, has raised the same contention again. Before dealing with it, it will it, it will be proper to dispose of a preliminary objection raised by Mr. Harbanbs Lal Sarin, who appears for the respondent Satindar Singh. The preliminary objection is; that under S. 73 (2) of the code of Civil Procedure a suit is competent and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in revision. In support of this objection the learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Fazal Din V. Narain Singh, 128 1906, Daulat Singh V. Rup narain AIR 1932 Lah 96, Bulakhidas V. Murlidhar, AIR 1940 Nag 302, sheetharamayya V. Rathamma, AIR 1935 Mad 399, Narsingh Das V. Gulab Rai, air 1935 Pat 201 (2) and Keshardeo V. Radha Kishen, AIR 1953 SC 23. Barring the last-mentioned decision, the other decisions do support the contention of the learned counsel. Mr. Ganga Parshad Jain in reply to the preliminary objection has relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in Vasantarajan V. Parvathammani, air 1954 Mad 201, wherein it was observed as follows: