PARSOTTAM Vs. GOPI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are ten decrees some against one Jani deceased some against his heirs and others against his son Mohammda alone or both. The decree No. 1 referred to in the judgment of the lower court has been obtained by Gopi Ram and Babu Lal against Jani and Mohammda. Decree No. 2 has been obtained against the same judgment debtor by Kedar. Decree No. 3 has been obtained by Parshotam Dass and Kaisar Deo against Jani deceased alone and against the same judgment debtor decree No. 4 has been obtained by Sita Ram and decree No. 5 has been obtained by Gokal Chand and Radheyshiam and decree No. 6 by Rameshwar Dass against five heirs of Jani deceased including Mohammda. Decree No. 7 has been obtained by Nagarmal and Bhagwati Pershad; decrees No. 8 and 9 by Chiranji Lal, Madan Lal, Ram Saran and Nand Lal and decree No. 10 by Radha Krishnen and Sanwal Ram against Mohammda. All the decrees except the decree No. 2 are of the Court of Munsif Jhunjhunu. The decree No. 2 alone is of the court of the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu. The decree holders of decree No. 1 placed their decree in execution and attached a house. The decree holders -of all the other decrees applied for rateable distribution of the assets. In the first instance an account was prepared according to which certain sums were shown as distributable to the decree holders of the different decrees. The learned Munsif sent notices to all the decree holders except the decree holder of decree No. 1 to file objection if any against the amount shown by the court. The decree holders of decrees No. 7 to 10 only filed their objections. The decree holders of other decrees did not raise any objection. The learned Munsif found that the statement previously prepared was not correct and consequently he prepared another statement holding that the different decree holders were entitled to the amount shown in last statement. The decree holders of decrees No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 have come in revision to this court against the order of the learned Munsif.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the opposite party that if the applicants were dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, their remedy was by way of suit under sec. 73 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and no revision was permissible under the circumstances.