LAWS(RAJ)-1957-11-15

HANUMAN DUTT Vs. HAZARIMAL

Decided On November 12, 1957
HANUMAN DUTT Appellant
V/S
HAZARIMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the decree-holder in an execution matter.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal may be briefly narrated. The appellant, hanumandutt, decree-holder got a decree for Rs. 7195/15/-against the judgment-debtor, respondent Hazarimal from the court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh. In execution of that decree, he applied for attachment of a sum of Rs. 7200/- which was due to Hazarimal from the Public Works Department at Bikaner. A notice was issued under Order XXI, Rule 52 to the Executive Engineer, Bikaner, requesting him that the money may be held subject to further orders of the court. In response to this notice, the Executive Engineer sent the whole amount to the court at Ratangarh and it was received there on 15-4-1952. The actual amount that remained in the hands of the court was Rs. 7191/-, the remaining being the transmission charges. On the same day the judgment-debtor objected that the attachment of the money was illegal and, therefore, the court had no right to proceed with the execution so far as that money in its hands was concerned. This objection of the judgment-debtor found favour with the court and it refused to execute the decree against the money which was in its own hands. Consequently, this appeal.

(3.) THERE is no doubt that there was an irregularity in this case inasmuch as the executive Engineer, Bikaner, was outside the jurisdiction of the court and the debt also appeared to have been payable outside the jurisdiction of the court. The proper procedure under the circumstances was for the court to transfer the decree to the court having jurisdiction in Bikaner so that this money might be attached. By mistake, however, the court issued a notice under Order XXI Rule 52, C. P. C. to the Executive Engineer, Bikaner and that officer deposited the money in response to the notice in the court at Ratangarh. It was thereafter that the judgment-debtor objected that the attachment was illegal and, therefore, execution should not proceed against this money.