MAHARAJ KISHORE KHANNA Vs. RAJA RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are presented on behalf of the judgment-debtor Maharaja Kishore Khanna against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Purnea overruling certain objections to the execution of a decree granted by the Special Judge of Banares under the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act.

(2.) In the year 1929, the Bank of Banares brought a suit against Maharaja Kishore for recovery of certain money claims. The Allahabad Bank and certain other creditors were also joined as parties to the suit. A decree was obtained by the Banares Bank but on 6-3-1936 Maharaja Kishore Khanna filed an application under Section 4, United Pro- vinces Encumbered Estates Act before the Collector of Benares. The Collector passed an order under Section 6 of the Act and forwarded the application to the Special Judge. On 21-3-1940 the Special Judge passed four decrees in favour of the Banares Bank and certain other creditors for a total amount of Rs. 11 lacs. The decrees were sent by the Special Judge to the Collector of Banares for execution. While the execution was pending the Allahabad Bank applied to the Collector for appointment of a receiver in respect of the entire property of the judgment-debtor. It is necessary to note that some properties of the judgment-debtor are located in the State of Bihar. The Collector allowed the application of the Allahabad Bank and appointed a receiver with respect to the properties in Bihar and United Provinces under Section 9C Encumbered Estates Act. An appeal was taken by the judgment-debtor to the Additional Commissioner who held that Section 9C was not applicable but as regards the Banares properties a receiver should be appointed under Section 3D of the Act and as regards the properties situated in Bihar a receiver should be aopointed under Order 40 Rule 1, C. P. C. The matter was taken in revision to the Board of Revenue who confirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner with respect to the appointment of a receiver for the landed properties located in Banares but the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner appointing a receiver for the properties situated in Bihar. While the revision application was pending before the Board of Revenue the Collector of Banares filed an execution petition before the Subordinate Judge of Purnea asking that a sum of Rs. 12,54,636 and odd due under the decree should be realised from the judgment-debtor by the sale of the Somapur estate and other properties situated in the district of Purnea. The decree was sent direct by the Civil Judge Banares, to the Subordinate Judge of Purnea under Order 21 Rule 5, C. P. C., together with a certificate of non-satisfaction of the decree. The decree holder applied to the Subordinate Judge of Purnea for an order of attachment under Order 21 Rule 52, C. P. C., of the amount of Rs. 25,000 lying in the hands of the Additional Collector of Banares- The application was allowed and the Subordinate Judge issued an order of attachment under Order 21 Rule 52, C. P. C., requiring the Additional Collector of Banares to withhold payment of the sum of Rs. 25,000 which was the amount collected by the receiver from the somapur estate in the district of Purnea for the period he was in charge.

(3.) The judgment-debtor objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that the Subordinate Judge of Purnea had no jurisdiction to execute the decree which was passed by the special Judge of Banares appointed under the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act. The judgment-debtor further objected that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 5 were not complied with and that the decree was barred by limitation. These objections were overruled by the learned Subordinate Judge of Purnea. As regards attachment of the amount of Rs. 25,000 in the hands of the Additional Collector of Banares, tho judgment-debtor filed a protest on the ground that the Subordinate Judge had DO jurisdiction to make such an order as the property sought to be attached was outside the territorial limits of the State of Bihar. This objection was also overruled by the learned Subordinate Judge and the application riled by the judgment-debtor in this behalf was dismissed.