SARJU PRASAD SINGH Vs. AJAMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition in revision filed by a claimant against an order rejecting his claim under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. The decree under execution is a mortgage decree for sale and the claim has been rejected by the learned Munsif on the ground that by the decree under execution the specific property now in question is directed to be sold and so it is beyond the jurisdiction of an executing Court to go behind that decree and to investigate under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., whether the property is liable to sale in execution of the decree. This is, therefore the only point for determination. In coming to his conclusion the learned Munsif has followed Deefholts V/s. Peters (1987) 14 Cal. 631 and Mahabir Prasad Singh V/s. Nogendra Nath Mandal A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 479. He might have added to this a ruling of this Court in Ragho Pahan V/s. Mt. Lachan Koer A.I.R. 1919 Pat. 131. These cases are cases under Order 21, Rule 58 as it originally stood and under the corresponding section, Section 278 C. P.C., 1882. Order 21, Rule 58 as it originally stood was in the following terms: Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to investigate the claim or objection. The rule next following was: The claimant or objector must adduce evidence to show that at the date of the attachment he had some interest in, or was possessed of, the property attached,

(2.) Rule 60 then provides that, where upon the said investigation the Court is satisfied that the property was not, "when attached," in the possession of the judgment-debtor etc., the Court shall make an order releasing the property, wholly or partially "from attachment." It was clear from this that the proceeding under Order 21, Rule 58 was intended to apply only to property attached in execution. This was the ratio decidendi of the three cases above mentioned. The learned Munsif has, however, relied on a passage in Deefholts V/s. Peters (1987) 14 Cal. 631 which has been cited with approval in Mahabir Prasad Singh V/s. Nogendra Nath Mandal A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 479: We think that proceedings by way of claim are not applicable to a case of this kind. Proceedings by way of claim are applicable only in cases of money decrees where property of the judgment-debtor has been attached; that is, where some property of the judgment-debtor is attached for the purpose of satisfying any general money claim. In that kind of claim it is clear that there should be some speedy remedy for the purpose of ascertaining whether the property claimed is the property of the judgment-debtor at all; but in a case like this where the property has been dealt with in a solemn way by the decree of the Court, and has been declared liable to sale under the mortgage, that remedy would not be applicable.

(3.) This passage illustrates what I have said above, namely that the ratio decidendi is the absence of attachment in a proceeding for the execution of a mortgage decree for sale. The other remarks are merely speculation as to the reason for which this procedure has not been considered suitable for a mortgage execution. Order 21, Rule 58 as modified by this High Court is now as follows: When any claim is preferred to any property, the subject-matter of execution proceedings, or any objection is made to the attachment thereof, on the ground that the applicant has an interest therein which is not bound under the decree, or that such property is not liable to attachment, the Court shall proceed to investigate the claim or objection. The Rule 59 now is: The claimant or objector must adduce evidence to show that at the date of the decree or of the attachment, as the case may be, he had some interest in, or was possessed of, the property in question. Rule 60 as now modified provides that, where upon the said investigation the Court is satisfied that such property was not "at the date of the decree, or when attached, as the case may be," in the possession of the judgment-debtor etc., the Court shall make an order releasing the property, wholly or in part. The modifications made in these three rules are clear and consistent and there can be no doubt that the object was to bring within the scope of proceedings under Order 21, Rule 58 not merely property attached in execution of the decree but also all property which is the subject-matter of the execution proceedings. Here the property in respect of which the claim was filed is admittedly the subject-matter of the execution proceedings. Hence, in my opinion, a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 58 was competent.