1. The question that arises for consideration in this civil revision application is as to whether the opposite party No. 6, Madanlal Agarwala was entitled to get rateable distribution along with the petitioner in certain money.

2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows : The petitioner filed Money Suit No. 119 of 1969 against opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Jamshedpur for a decree for Rs. 46,000. Against the same judgement-debtors (opposite party Nos. 1 to 5), Execution Case No. 67 of 1971 was levied by one Banwarilal Agarwala for realisation of certain money in the Court of the same Subordinate Judge. After fully satisfying the decree of Banwarilal Agarwala, a sum of Rs. 18,000 was found in excess and was separately deposited by a chalan in the said Execution Case No. 67 of 1971.

3. The petitioner had attached before judgement the said sum of Rs. 18,000. The suit of the petitioner was decreed on 13-12-1971 and then he put the decree in execution in Execution Case No. 146 of 1971 on 20-12-1971. The decree being for more than the sum of Rs. 18,000 which was attached before the judgement, the petitioner, besides praying for payment of the said sum of Rs. 18,000, also prayed for attachment of certain other bills of the judgement-debtors. I am not, however, concerned with the details of those bills. It is not clear as to what orders were passed in the execution case of the petitioner in regard to his prayer with respect to the said sum of Rs. 18,000, but it appears that the amount in question was brought to the Execution Case of the petitioner from the case in which it was earlier deposited.

4. Opposite Party No. 6 had filed Money Suit No. 43 of 1970 in the same court of the Subordinate Judge for realisation of certain money against the same judgement-debtors and had also got the aforesaid sum of Rs. 18,000 attached before judgement. The aforesaid suit of opposite party No. 6 was also decreed on 19-6-1972 and on the same day he levied execution, his Execution Case being No. 54 of 1972, and also made a prayer that the sum of Rs. 18,000 lying in deposit may be rateably distributed as excess amount in Execution Case No. 67 of 1971, which was attached before judgement in Money Suit No. 43 of 1970. On this prayer, the learned Subordinate Judge by his order D/- 22-6-1972, after dispensing with the requirement of O.21, R.22 of the Civil P.C. directed for attachment of the said money lying in deposit in Execution Case No. 67 of 1971. Accordingly, a prohibitory order under O.21, R.53 of the Civil P.C. was issued from the Court of the Subordinate Judge to the Judge Incharge of Accounts, Jamshedpur requesting him to "hold the said money subject to the further orders of this Court."

5. It has been seen that the amount in question was the result of the surplus which was found after satisfying the decree in Execution Case No. 87 of 1971 of the same Court levied by Banwarilal Agarwala, and inasmuch as the amount was surplus, it seems to have been put under the charge of the Judge Incharge of Accounts. The amount, however, must be deemed to be held by the Court below.

6. The records of Execution Case No. 146 of 1971 have not been received from the Court below, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the entire order sheet at the time of hearing of this application, and from the said order sheet I find that the petitioner had again taken steps for attachment of the said amount of Rs. 18,000 in his execution proceeding, although that amount was also got attached by him before the judgement passed in his suit.

7. Be that as it may, the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the claim of opposite party No. 6 solely on the ground that "he had obtained an attachment before judgement during the money suit itself......"

8. It was contended by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner before me that the learned Subordinate Judge has committed an apparent error of juris