B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition filed under sec. 115 of C. P. C. is directed against the order dt. 10-3-1997. made in S. R. No. 327 of 1997 in O. S. No. 34 of 1996 and O. S. No. 232 of 1995 on the file of the learned Additional subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error or any infirmity, it is necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this Civil Revision petition.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the decree holder in O. S. No. 227 of 1995. The suit is decreed on 25-1-1996. He filed E. P. No. 65 of 1996 on 20-6-1996 for attachment of the monies of the judgment-debtor which are lying with the garnishee. The second respondent in this c. R. P. is the decreeholder in O. S. No. 234 of 1995 and whereas the third respondent is the decreeholder in O. S. No. 34 of 1996. The judgment-debtor in all the suits is the same.

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute whatsoever that all the four decreeholders including the parties in this C. R. P. at the relevant time got attached the amounts of the Judgment- debtor which were lying with the O. N. G. C by way of attachment. The attachment was effected in all the four suits. However the attachment before Judgment petition filed by the petitioner herein (decreeholder in o. S. No. 227 of 1995) had been dismissed while decreeing the suit for whatever reasons.

( 5 ) THE decreeholders among themselves contended before the trial Court that the decree holders in O. S. Nos. 227 of 1995 and 34 of 1996 are not entitled to claim rateable, since they have not filed Execution Petitions. The decreeholder in O. S. No. 34 of 1996 is claiming rateable distribution of the amounts among all the decreeholders. The contention of the decreeholders in o. S. No. 227 of 1995 and 232 of 1995 is that the decreeholder in O. S. No. 234 of 1995 and 34 of 1996 are not entitled to claim rateable distribution.

( 6 ) THE trial Court after an elaborate consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that all the decreeholders are entitled to rateable distribution of the amounts which are lying to the credit of o. S. Nos. 232 of 1995 and 234 of 1995.

( 7 ) IN this C. R. P. Sri M. S. K. Sastry, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the other decreeholders are not entitled for any rateable distribution of the amounts for the reason that they did not file the execution petition under Order 21 Rule 11 of C. P. C. as is required in law. In nutshell, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the other decreeholders are not entitled for the benefit of Sec. 73 of the C. P. C.

( 8 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the decreeholders other than the petitioner herein are not entitled for the benefit of the distribution of the assets and as to whether they are not entitled for the benefit of Sec. 73 of C. P. C. it may be necessary to notice Sec. 73 of the C. P. C. Section 73. Proceeds of execution sale to be rateably distributed among decree holders: (1) Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made applications 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 realization, shall be rateably distributed among all such persons: provided as follows: (a) where any property is sold subject to a mortgage or charge, the mortgagee or incumbrancer shall not be entitled to share in any surplus arising from such sale; (b) where any property liable to be sold in execution of a decree is subject to a mortgage or charge, the Court may with, the consent of the mortgagee or incumbrancer, order that the property be sold free from the mortgage or charge, giving to the mortgagee or incumbrancer the same interest in the proceeds of the sale as he had in the property sold; (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document