Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.ANANDA REDDY
Kanakam Srinivasa Rao - Appellant
Versus
Ganga Venkateswara Rao - Respondent
C.R.P.No.2139/02
Decided On : 09-26-02
Advocates Appeared :
Mr.A.Ravi Shankar,Mr.P.Veera Reddy
Ratable distribution - What is contemplated under provisions of Sec73 CPC is existence of more than one decree against same JDr and decree holders have made their applications for execution of their decrees and have not been fully satisfied - Once that is position, as soon as assets of JDr are received by another Court, they can make an application for ratable distribution without getting their decrees transferred to Court, which received assets - Application is to be filed u/S73 for ratable distribution after receipt of assets by Court - Admittedly, in the present case, Court below ordered ratable distribution on ground that both DHRs got assets of JDr attached during pendency of suit, which is not at all relevant for application of Sec73 - Impugned order, set aside - Matter restored to Court below to consider case in the light of law laid down in this case - Revision petition allowed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a dispute over the application of Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding ratable distribution of assets among multiple decree-holders against the same judgment-debtor (!) (!) .
The facts include two separate suits filed against the same judgment-debtor, with attached assets (term deposits) that were subsequently transmitted to the credit of the respective suits after attachments were made (!) (!) .
Both suits were decreed in favor of different plaintiffs, and the attached amounts were transmitted to the credit of the respective suits by the bank (!) (!) .
One decree-holder filed an application under Section 73 for ratable distribution of the attached assets, leading to an order for ratable distribution between the decree-holders (!) .
The revision petitioner contended that since part of the amount had already been realized or paid over to the decree-holder, Section 73 should not apply, as the assets in question no longer belonged to the judgment-debtor (!) .
The opposing argument was that the assets, although transmitted to the credit of the suit, still belonged to the judgment-debtor until paid over, and thus, the decree-holder was entitled to a ratable distribution (!) .
The legal analysis clarified that for Section 73 to apply, certain conditions must be met: multiple decrees against the same judgment-debtor, applications for execution made before receipt of assets, assets held by the court, and the decrees must be for the payment of money (!) (!) .
It was emphasized that once assets are received by the court, decree-holders who have pending applications for execution are entitled to seek ratable distribution, even if some assets have already been realized or paid over, provided their applications were made before receipt of assets (!) (!) .
The order for ratable distribution was set aside because the lower court's reasoning was based on attachments made during the pendency of the suit, which was not relevant for the application of Section 73 (!) .
The case was remanded to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the legal principles laid down, emphasizing that the existence of multiple decrees and applications for execution prior to receipt of assets are critical factors (!) (!) .
The revision was allowed, and the order for ratable distribution was set aside accordingly (!) .
Please let me know if you need any further analysis or specific legal guidance related to this case.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the 1st respondent before the lower Court, aggrieved by the order passed in EA No. 388 of 2001 in EA No. 147 of 201 in O. S. No. 92 of 1999, dated 6th March, 2002.
( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed a suit-O. S. No. 92 of 1999 on the file of the Additional senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for recovery of certain amount against the 2nd respondent. The petitioner also filed LA. No. 463 of 1999 under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the code of Civil Procedure for attachment of term deposits of the 2nd respondent in a sum of Rs. 62,000. 00 and Rs. 15,000. 00 respectively lying with the State Bank of India, Main branch, Srikakulam. The lower Court ordered attachment on 16-12-1999 against the said deposits and also issued prohibitory orders to the Branch Manager, state Bank of India. The said order was served on the said Branch Manager on 17- 12-1999.
( 3 ) THE facts also further show that the 1st respondent herein also filed O. S. No. 93 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Senior civil Judge, Srikakulam. He also filed LA. No. 672 of 1999 for attachment of the term deposit of Rs. 62. 000. 00 belongs to the 2nd respondent and the said amount was got attached by an order dated 16-12-1999 and the said order was served on the Branch manager on 18-12-1999. The 1st respondent in addition to the term deposit lying with the SBI also got attached a sum of Rs. 1,75,030. 00 lying with the Telecom Department, according to the 1st respondent. Subsequently, both the suits were decreed, i. e. , o. S. No. 92 of 1999 was decreed on 4-4-2001, which was in favour of the petitioner herein: and O. S. No. 93 of 1999 was decreed on 7-4-2001 in favour of the 1st respondent herein. Thereafter the 1st respondent filed e. A. No. 147 of 2001 for getting the attached amounts lying with the SBI, to the credit of the suit and in fact, the said amount was transmitted by the SBI to the credit of the suit. At that stage the 1st respondent herein filed E. A. No. 388 of 2001, under Section 73, Cr. P. C. , praying the Executing Court to pass appropriate order for rateable distribution of the amount of Rs. 62,000. 00. The executing Court after hearing both sides passed orders accepting the contention of the 1st respondent and ordered for rateable distribution of the attached amount between the two decree-holders. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner herein, who was the 1st respondent before the lower Court, has come up with the present revision.
( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisidns of Section 73, c. P. C. have no application to the facts of the present case. According to the learned counsel the 1st respondent has got attached a sum of Rs. 1,75,030. 00 from the Telecom department and in fact according to the learned counsel it was realised. Therefore, there is no case for rateable distribution, as major part of the amount was already realised by the 1st respondent. The learned counsel also contended that what is lying to the credit of the suit of the petitioner or execution petitioner is an amount of Rs. 62,000. 00, which was transmitted by the SBI. The said amount could not be considered as an asset of the judgment-debtor, which was already transmitted and lying to the credit of the execution petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment-debtor. Therefore, it is a ceased to be the asset of the judgment-debtor and therefore, the provisions of Section 73, C. P. C. have no applicable. Hence, the Court below was not justified in ordering for ratable distribution between the petitioner and the 1st respondent.
( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, supported the order of the Court below. According to the learned counsel, the 1st respondent did not realise any amount alleged to be lying with the Telecom Department, as if was the case of the Telecom Department that no such amount was lying with the said department, which belongs to the judgment-debtor. T
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
