KIRTYANAND SINGH Vs. PRITHI CHAND LAL CHAUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Patna, which affirmed an order dated 19 September 1927, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr. The question arises in this way. On 1 April 1914 a decree was made in certain rent suits by which by consent the present appellants, or their predecessors, obtained a decree for Rs. 1,84,521, besides further interest thereon at 8 annas per cent per month. It was provided by the decree that the plaintiff should not take out execution of the decree until March 1915, so that there was a year's suspension. The present respondent was a consenting party to the decree in his capacity as surety. The result of that apparently is that the decree can under S. 145, Civil PC be executed against him as though he were a party to the suit and the principal debtor.

(2.) Having obtained that decree, the plaintiffs made a number of applications for execution. The first was made on 23 June 1915, and apparently was struck off on 24 June 1916, without there being any satisfaction of the decree. A second application was made on 10 September 1918, and that again was struck off on 25 March 1919 without any satisfaction of the decree. A third application was made on 10 April 1919; but in the meantime the defendants in the rent suits who apparently were, or claimed to be, interested in the Srinagar Raj, as one of their principal assets, had a suit commenced against them by a lady of the family, the nature of Which does not very clearly appear but which was evidently a suit for the protection of the property in the interests of the family.

(3.) In the course of that suit, apparently in January 1920, a receiver was appointed, and on 31 January an application was made in that suit by the appellants in the absence of the judgment-debtors and of the surety, which resulted in an order in that suit for payment of Rupees 9,000 half-yearly by the receiver in that suit to the appellants in respect of their judgment debt in the rent suits. In fact the receiver paid nothing. On 24th February 1920 the third application for execution in the rent suits which was up till that moment pending, was struck out. About this time it appears that at the instance of the receiver in the Raj suit the proceedings in the rent suits were transferred from Monghyr, where they had theretofore been conducted, to Bhagalpur where the Raj suit was proceeding; and presently an application was made by the appellants in the Raj suit asking in effect that either the receiver might pay their debt, or that they might levy execution on the property of the Raj in the hands of the receiver.