The judgment established the conditions under which an amount in dispute could be attached in execution of a decree, and the circumstances under which a petitioner could be considered to be in custody of the amount for the benefit of the judgment debtor.

1. The revision petitioner is the petitioner herein. He has prayed for the review of the order dated 13th December, 1988 dismissing the C.R.P.

2. Facts relevant and requisite to consider the questions involved in the case lie in a narrow compass. The first respondent-State Bank of India obtained a decree against the second respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-. To execute the decree the bank filed E.P. 177/86. The Bank immediately thereafter filed E.A. 165/87, impleading not only the judgment debtor but also the petitioner herein and the third respondent

Corporation Bank as respondents, under 0.21 R.43 and 46 C.P.C. and sought for an order prohibiting the third respondent from giving away the amount of Rs. 10,858.70 ps. credited in the account of the second respondent. It is relevant in this context to bear in mind the specific case of the Bank that this amount of Rs. 10,858.70 ps. forms part of the amounts misappropriated by the judgment debtor the second respondent from the Bank and hence the bank is entitled to recover it whether it is in the custody of the second respondent or in the custody of any other person. The petitioner, according to the Bank, in only a name lender.

3. I shall in this connection refer to the following excerpt from the order under attack as it highlights those aspects which weighed with the court below in passing the order under challenge:?

"... The decree holder Bank obtained a decree for recovery of the amounts misappropriated by the judgment debtor from the decree holder Bank by forging documents and falsifying accounts while be was working in the Bank as a Clerk-cum-Cashier. Under the decree the Bank is entitled to realise a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the judgment debtor. One such misappropriation was made by the judgment debtor (second respondent herein) on 27-5-82 by forging a banker's cheque for a sum of S.10,858.70P in favour of the 3rd respondent in this petition who is his brother-in-law. The C.B.I. charge sheeted the judgment debtor for offences of criminal breach of trust, forgery and falsification of accounts. The judgment debtor pleaded guilty to the charge and he was convicted by the special court. During the course of investigation, the C.B.I. freezed the account of the 3rd respondent in relation to the sum of Rs. 10,858.70P misappropriated by the judgment debtor. The 3rd respondent is only a namelender for the judgment debtor in respect of this amount. In fact, the 3rd judgment debtor was an abettor of the offence committed by the judgment debtor. 3rd. respondent has no manner of right in this amount misappropriated by the judgment' debtor from the decree holder bank..." (emphasis supplied)

It is relevant in this context to note that the petitioner has no case that this amount represents his savings from his profession. He has also no case that this represents income from his properties. On the other hand it is the common case of the parties that the amount represents the amount covered by the forged cheque (mentioned in the above extract), given to the Corporation Bank for collection. The amount however, has been collected through the account of the petitioner. It is thus clear that the petitioner cannot have any legal claim over this amount. It is also interesting to note that the petitioner has no case that at the time when the judgment debtor gave this cheque to him, the judgment debtor owed any money to him and it is towards the said debt this amount was paid.

4. Taking these aspects into account the court below, by the order under challenge in the C.R.P., has directed the Corporation Bank to pay the amount to the decree-holder.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the amount in dispute is not money owed by the petitioner to the judgment debtor and hence the same is not a debt within the meaning of 0.21 R.46. In order to opine that a particular transaction reflects a debt, it must be established that there is the relationship of debtor and creditor between