ORDER : - This Revision petition is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment of the District Munsif, Vijayawada. dismissing a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 198/-. The suit giving occasion to this revision petition was filed under the following circumstances-.

2. The petitioner filed a suit in S.C. No. 357/46 on the file of the Sub Court, Vijayawada, against one Subudhi Sanjeevarao for recovery of Rs 885/- by way of damages. Pending that suit he filed I.A. No. 1765 of 1946 for attachment of moneys said to be with the 1st defendant. The present 1st defendant was served with notice of attachment on 21-12-1956. On this notice, the 1st defendant endorsed that he had a claim against the amount deposited with him by the 2nd defendant and could not therefore be proceeded against. As pointed out by the Learned Judge, it does not appear what order was ultimately passed on this. No material has been placed before him in that regard. Ultimately, the present plaintiff obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent (defendant) and called upon the present 1st respondent to deposit the amount into Court as per the notice, Ex. A-2. As the 1st defendant refused to comply with it, the present suit was instituted.

3. The suit was contested by the 1st defendant. His answer was that there was no debt payable by him to the 2nd defendant which could be attached and that in any event it was adjusted by him towards the amount due by the 2nd defendant to him.

4. The Trial Court accepted the defence and dismissed the suit.

5. The two points that arise for determination in this C.R.P. filed by the aggrieved plaintiff are whether the money which was deposited by the 2nd defendant with the 1st defendant in pursuance of the terms of the contract between them could be attached under Order 21 Rule 46 as amended in Madras and secondly whether the respondent could appropriate the amount towards the moneys due to him.

6. The undisputed facts are that the 2nd defendant who is an exhibitor of films entered into contract with the 1st defendant, a film distributor for exhibiting a talkie picture called "Bala Nagamma". He deposited a sum of Rs. 150/- for the due preformance of the contract and to make good any loss sustained by the 1st defendant. The first Question for decision is whether this deposit can fall within the purview of Order 21 Rule 46(a) Civil Procedure Code. Neither clause (1) nor clause (b) can apply to this because this does not amount to a debt not secured by a negotiable instrument, nor is it a share in the capital of the corporation. The only clause that is sought to be applied is clause (c) which is "other movable property not in the possession of the judgment-debtor, except property deposited in, or in the custody of any Court." Mr. Narayana Rao contends that the amount in dispute is covered by clause (c) because this is movable property not in the custody of the judgment-debtor. It looks to me that the instant case cannot come within the operation of that clause. It cannot be regarded as movable property belonging to the judgment-debtor because the amount due if any to the 2nd defendant could be determined only after the exhibition of the picture was over, for under the terms of the contract, the 1st defendant, the film-distributor, had a hen upon this money for any loss to be sustained by him in reeard to the exhibition of the picture. In my judgment, the case falls within the meaning of Gajraj v. Hukamehnnd. AIR 1939 Bom 90 (A) where it was ruled by a Bench of the Bombay High Court that the movable property referred to in sub-rule (c) of Or. 21 Rule 46 C.P.C., should be capable of being in possession of the judgment-debtor and therefore property of a tangible character. It was therefore held that a deposit made by a member of a certain association which was liable to forfeiture in certain events and was also subject, to certain liens could be regarded as other movable property since the amount in deposit could not be ascertained until the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document