KONCHADU DALAYYA Vs. MALLA SUNDARA NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an application under Secs.63 and 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 12 of 1930 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ganjam. Pending O.S. No. 12 of 1930, the plaintiff had obtained an attachment before judgment of certain properties of the defendant. The decree was passed on the 23 March, 1931 and on the 3 July, 1931, he filed an application for execution as well as E.P. No. 52 of 1931 out of which the present Civil Revision Petition arises. In the execution application he asked for sale of the properties already attached before judgment. The last column in that execution application refers to the attachment before judgment but we must take it that though the column refers to a schedule attached to the petition, the schedule was not in fact put into Court along with the execution petition.

(2.) In E.P. No. 52 of 1931, however, the decree-holder stated that the properties thus attached before judgment in O.S. No. 12 of 1930 had been brought to sale by the District Munsif's Court of Sompeta in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 81 of 1930 on the file of that Court, and he accordingly prayed that the amount realised under that sale may be called for and distributed by the Sub-Court, rateably amongst various decree-holders. We find from the endorsements on the execution petition No. 52 of 1931 that on the 6 July, the learned Subordinate Judge intimated the fact of this application to the District Munsif of Sompeta and asked that the money might be sent over to the Sub-Court or be retained in the District Munsif 's Court pending further orders from the Sub-Court. We later on find a note of intimation from the District Munsif of Sompeta that the money was retained in his Court pending the orders of the Sub-Court.

(3.) The main execution application, was returned for production of the copy of the order of attachment before judgment and the schedule and when it was re-presented, it was again returned for amendment of certain errors in the schedule. It was finally re-presented on the 31 August, 1931, when the Subordinate Judge passed an order thereon calling for sale- papers.