MT ANNAPURNA DEBI Vs. ASHUTOSH DEO GHATWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Deoghar by which he issued notice on certain decree-holders who were executing their decrees by the method of rateable distribution of the assets of the judgment-debtor. It would appear that the petitioner in this Court had obtained a decree on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court (by what means it is unnecessary to state) and then, after the execution to which I have made reference had already started applied to the Court of the Subordinate Judge to have share in the rateable distribution to the other decree-holders. It was in those circumstances that the order which is complained of was made.

(2.) The learned Judge in the course of his order has stated that there were several circumstances in the case which caused suspicion, and it was desirable that some enquiry should be made to ascertain how far the judgment-debtor, Ghatwal, against whom the petitioner had got a decree, was competent to look after his own affairs and interest, and whether he was a free agent in the compromise decree obtained as he did cot appear as a judgment-debtor in this execution case, and whether steps should not be taken in the public interest and in the interests of justice to contest the execution of this decree. The sentiments of the learned Judge may be very fine; but the question is whether in expressing himself in that way he was acting within his jurisdiction.

(3.) I have set out a statement of the Judge himself, because it was suggested by the learned advocate who appears on behalf of the receiver suggested that what the learned Judge intended to do was to issue notice upon the other decree- holders, calling upon them to show cause why the present petitioner should not participate in the rateable distribution and whether there was any reason (such as given in Section 73, Civil P.C.) why the rateable distribution should not be enjoyed by the petitioner. A persual of the order and of the references I have made, makes it quite clear to me that the learned. Judge intended to throw open an inquiry as to the validity of the petitioner's decree.