RAMANUGRAH PRASAD Vs. RAMESHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Receiver of the Maksudpur estate, having been appointed as such by the Court of the third Subordinate Judge at Patna. In that Court apparently a mortgage decree was obtained against the proprietors of the Makshudpur estate by the Raja of Kanika. THE decree is for a sum of more or less 9 lakhs, and there are, it is said, other decrees pending for execution against the Maksudpur estate. THE opposite party is a lawyer practising at Gaya and instituted a suit to recover money due to him for his professional services. This suit was instituted against the Receiver and for this the permission of the third Subordinate Judge was apparently obtained. THE suit was eventually decreed and the opposite party put the decree into execution and asked the second Munsif at Gaya to attach certain money standing in the Imperial Bank to the credit of the petitioner. THE learned Munsif made an order attaching this money and directing that the opposite party should be paid out of it. It is, I think, quite clear that in following this procedure the learned Munsif fell into an error. THE procedure which he ought to have followed was that indicated in Order 21, Rule 52, Civil P.C. It is obviously undesirable that each of the possibly many holders of decrees against the Maksudpur Raj should be enabled to attach and seize any money standing at the Receiver's credit in the bank without the Court which appointed the Receiver being informed. Mr. M.K. Mukherji for the petitioner, relied on the decision in Prayag Kumar Debi V/s. Bhudhar Mal A.I.R. 1931 Pat. 204 and to other decisions which I need not, I think, cite.

(2.) THE learned advocate for the opposite party suggested that the petitioner was not entitled to apply in revision as he could and ought to have appealed to the learned District Judge. I am not, however, satisfied that the point really comes under Section 47, Civil P.C., the point being purely one of procedure and no question of final determination of the respective rights of the decree-holder and judgment-debtor having been determined. In any case, if there had been substance in the point, I should have had to return this application to the petitioner so that he might present it as a memorandum of appeal to the proper Court. THE order of the learned munsif having been made without jurisdiction, he should now proceed in the manner indicated in Order 21, Rule 52 of the Code. I have no doubt that, after the attachment has been made in the manner there provided, the learned Subordinate Judge of Patna will transmit the money to the Court executing the decree, or at least will make certain that any objection to this which is raised is not a frivolous objection. With these observations, the application is allowed. THEre will, however, be no order for costs.