Judgement

Appeal (No. 61 of 1942) from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court (December 1, 1939) which affirmed an order of the District Judge of Unao (August 6, 1936) who had decided that the appellant bank was not entitled to share rateably under s. 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a distribution of the assets held by the court of a judgment-debtor, one Shanti Lal.

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The

points involved in this appeal turned on the true construction of s. 73, sub-s. I, of the Code of Civil Procedure (V. of 1908) which is in the following terms— "Where assets are held by a, court and more persons than one " have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to " the court for the execution of decrees for the payment of " money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have " not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets, after deducting " the costs of realisation, shall be rateably distributed among " all such persons." It was common ground that at all material times there was held by the District Court, Unao, assets of one Shanti Lal amounting to a sum of Rs. 49,166 or thereabouts, and that before the receipt of those assets various decree-holders had made application to the court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the said Shanti Lal and had not obtained satisfaction thereof. They accordingly claimed to be entitled to a rateable distribution of the said sum under the above section. Their claims were allowed by the District Judge, Unao, who by an order, dated August 6, 1936, ordered that the balance of the amount in deposit (after satisfying in full a claim of the Secretary of State for India) should be rateably distributed among the holders of seventeen decrees.

The present appellant had made an application for the execution of the order hereinafter mentioned, and had not obtained satisfaction thereof. It according claimed a share in the rateable distribution, its claim being based on an order which had been made in its favour under s. 186, sub-s. 1, of the Indian Companies Act (VII. of 1913) which runs thus "The court may, at any time after making a winding up order, make an order on any contributory for the time being settled on the list of contributories to pay, in manner directed by the order, any money due from him or from the estate of the person whom he represents to the company exclusive of any money payable by him or the estate by virtue of any call in pursuance of this Act." The order in favour of the appellant, dated March 27, 1935, was made by the District Judge, Lahore, in the following terms — "Upon the application of the official liquidators of the above-named company and upon reading orders passed thereon to-day, it is ordered under s. 186 read with s. 160 of the Act that Shanti Lal son of Lala Jairam Das, c/o Lala Kundan Lal, Eastern Electric Works, Cawnpore, do pay to the official liquidators of the said company the sum of Rs. 1,37,557/10/3 (one lac, thirty-seven thousand, five hundred and fifty-seven, annas ten and pies three) only with costs due from his late father Lala Jairam Das, the original contributory in respect of a pronote dated July 1, 1928, for Rs. 1,11,500/8/-, in favour of the above said Bank, which still remains unpaid.

"This order of payment may be enforced as a decree under the provisions of ss. 199, 200 and 201 of the Act against the estate, if any, of the deceased contributory in the hands of " the above said Shanti Lal."

That order was sent for execution to the Chief Court of Oudh, and was by that court forwarded to the District Judge, Unao, in a letter addressed by the deputy registrar of the court to the said District Judge in the following terms— "I am directed to forward to your court for execution and necessary action, the order of the District Judge in charge liquidation work at Lahore, which has been certified by this honourable court on January 27, 1936, in the case noted on