T RANGANATHA TAWKER Vs. TSEETHARAMA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In our opinion the plaintiffs were not entitled to rateable distribution, because at the date on which the assets were realized, there was no application for execution presented by them, pending in the Court which conducted the execution.

(2.) The plaintiffs applied in April 1900, for attachment of the 1 defendant's right to receive a monthly allowance and for an injunction directing the disburser of the allowance to pay it into Court as it fell due. The Subordinate Judge did not attach the right, but in his order of the 23 of April 1900, directed notice to be issued as regards the prayer for injunction. On the 4 of May, he made an absolute order directing the disburser of the allowance of the Dewan Trustee of Ramnad to pay the allowance into Court, and on the 18 of July, payment not having been made he struck off the execution application of the plaintiffs.

(3.) It is not denied that this last order closed the proceedings of the plaintiffs application unless the order of the 4 May directing payment into Court can be taken as an order effecting an attachment under Section 268 of the Civil Procedure Code.