BASUDEV NARAIN Vs. PADUMNATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by one of the judgment-debtors against an order of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur. The opposite-party No 1 obtained a decree against the petitioner and four others who are opposite-parties Nos. 3 to 6, and opposite-party No. 2 obtained a decree against opposite-party Nos. 3 and 4: both these decrees were decrees for money. In the execution proceedings of the decree obtained by opposite-party No. 1, the judgment-debtors deposited Rs. 1,000 and the petitioner also paid, out of Court, to the decree-holder, another Rs. 1,000 and in addition deposited Rs. 500 in Court. Opposite-Party No. 2 applied to the lower Court for rateable distribution.

(2.) The lower Court held that he was not entitled to rateable distribution with regard to the Rs. 1,000 paid out of Court, and there is no question now with respect to that. The order of the lower Court permitting rateable distribution with respect of the Rs. 500 deposited in Court is the subject-matter in dispute. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the opposite-party No. 2 is not entitled to rateable distribution with respect to the sum of Rs. 500. Mr. Manohar Lal on behalf of opposite-party No. 2 has contended that no revision lies against the order of the lower Court, inasmuch as the applicant has a remedy by suit. Mr. Manohar Lal also contends that the decision of the lower Court was correct.

(3.) With regard to the question of the right of the opposite-party No. 2 to rateable distribution with respect of the Rs. 500 it will be noticed that this sum was paid into Court by a judgment-debtor who is not common to the two decrees. It appears to me, from a reading of Section 73, Civil P.C., that in the case of decrees against several persons money realized from judgment-debtors who are common to both decrees is alone available for distribution among the decree-holders; but that section does not appear to me to permit rateable distribution of money paid by one judgment-debtor to a decree-holder who has no claim against him. In the case of Mt. Inderbasi Kuer V/s. Satnarain Singh AIR 1923 Pat 521, to which Mr. Manohar Lal has referred, the money had been paid into Court by judgment- debtors who were common to both the decrees that were the subject-matter of that case.