MAULA DEVI Vs. PRAYAG PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application arises out of a dispute between two decree-holders arising out of two different suits against one Nagina Prasad. Both the parties appearing here i.e., the petitioner and the opposite party 1 instituted a suit and obtained decrees, the prior suit being that of the opposite party. In that suit they had obtained an attachment before judgment of the property which is involved in this dispute. It is not disputed that the decree of the petitioners has already been executed, sale effected and confirmed in regard to the property in relation to which the opposite party is now executing his decree. The objection of the petitioners, relying on, (1931) 12 Pat LT 639 : (AIR 1931 Pat 405) (Firm Ganga Ram Gulraj Ram v. Muktiram Marwari) and Order 38, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C. is that the decree of the opposite party can no longer be executed against the property in spite of the attachment. It will be relevant to quote the paragraph of the aforesaid decision and the relevant provisions of the Civil P. C., which are as follows: (1931) 12 PLT 639 : (AIR 1931 Pat 405):--

(2.) IN view of the aforesaid state of affairs, I have no hesitation in allowing the application and holding that the opposite party cannot execute the decree in relation to the property already sold and the sale confirmed. It will be open to the opposite party, however to proceed against any other property of the judgment debtor in accordance with law. Accordingly the impugned judgment is set aside, but without costs.