LACHHMI NARAIN GIRDHARI LAL Vs. MANSA RAM MURLIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by certain attaching: creditors. It appears that the appellants Lachhmi Narain Girdhari Lal held a money decree of the year 1925 against Ram Din Hazari Lal respondent 2, who had obtained another decree from the High Court in 1929 for Rs. 11,750-against Mansaram Murlidhar, respondent 1. The High Court had varied the decree of the first Court and an application for leave to appeal to their Lordships of the Privy Council was filed by Mansa Ram Murlidhar in October 1929. While that application was pending the appellants executed their own decree and got the decree of Ram Din Hazari Lal against Mansa Ram Murlidhar attached by the execution Court on 29 March 1930. The findings of the Court below do not make it clear whether Mansa Ram Murlidhar received notice or had knowledge of this attachment before 23 May 1930. On 12 April 1930 Lachhmi Narain Girdhari Lal who had attached the decree of Ram Din Hazari Lal applied for the execution of the latter's decree. While these execution proceedings were pending a written compromise was filed in the High Court on 23 May 1930, entered into between Ram Din Hazari Lal and Mansa Ram Murlidhar upon which the decree-holders agreed to reduce the amount of the decree from Rs. 11,750 to Rs. 3,000 in full satisfaction of their claim. There were certain conditions put down in the compromise as regards the payment of the amount up to the time of the verification of the compromise in the Court below. On 28 June 1930, Rs. 3,000 were deposited in Court by means of an application which stated that there were a number of attaching creditors including the present appellants. On a report from the Court below having been received the High Court passed the following order: Let the application in Privy Council Appeal No. 41 of 1929 be dismissed without costs, the appellant having fulfilled the terms of the compromise which has been entered into between the parties and which has been duly verified. The result is that the decree against the applicant has been fully satisfied.

(2.) In the course of the execution proceedings the attaching creditors took up the position that the compromise entered into between Ram Din Hazari Lai, the decree-holders and Mansa Ram Murlidhar, the judgment-debtors, was in no way binding upon the attaching creditors as the decree had been attached. The Court below has overruled this contention and has come to the conclusion that the deposit having been made for payment to the attaching creditors with the consent of the High Court and there being nothing to show that the compromise was collusive, the decree must be deemed to have been fully satisfied. The attaching creditors have appealed and it is urged on their behalf that the compromise does not in any way affect their right. The agreement between the decree-holders and the judgment-debtors to reduce the amount decreed by the High Court was in the nature of an adjustment of their claim because the application for leave to appeal to their Lordships of the Privy Council was pending and in that sense the High Court's decree had not become absolutely final. The case therefore does not strictly speaking fall within the scope of Section 64, Civil P.C. for in this case there was neither any private transfer nor delivery of the property attached nor of any interest therein or any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt or money etcetera. It was on the face of it a compromise of a doubtful claim in order to put a stop to further litigation. The agreement of 23 May 1930 would therefore not be invalid by virtue of the provisions of Section 64, Civil P.C.

(3.) Order 21, Rule 53 prescribes the method in which a decree of another Court can be attached. The attachment is made by the issue to such Court of a notice by the Court which passed the decree requesting such Court to stay the execution of its decree unless the notice be cancelled, or the holder of the decree sought to be executed applied to the Court receiving such notice to execute its own decree. Sub-rule (6) provides that on the application for attachment having been given the Court shall give notice of such order to the judgment-debtor bound by the decree attached and no payment or adjustment of the attached decree made by the judgment-debtor in contravention of such order after receipt of notice or of knowledge thereof, either through the Court or otherwise shall be recognized by any Court so long as the attachment remains in force.