The executing court has jurisdiction to attach the property of the judgment debtor in the custody of a Court or public officer beyond its territorial jurisdiction, as provided under O.21 R.52.

M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.

1. Revision petitioner is the second judgment debtor, a surety. Amount due him from P.W.D. was attached by the Sub Judge, Vadakara.

2. The sole contention of the revision petitioner is that the Sub Judge has no jurisdiction to attach the property which is outside his territorial jurisdiction. The executing Court overruled the objection and ordered attachment and allowed the execution to be proceeded with. The amount sought to be attached is with the P.W.D. Executive Engineer, Mane whose office is admittedly beyond the jurisdiction of the executing Court The question that arises for consideration is whether the executing Court can order attachment of amount due to the judgment debtor from the Executive Engineer whose office is beyond the Court's jurisdiction.

3. O.21 R.52 reads:

"Where the property to be attached is in the custody of any Court or public officer, the attachment shall be made by a notice to such Court or officer, requesting that such property, and any interest or dividend becoming payable thereon, may be held subject to the further orders of the Court from which the notice is issued. Provided that, where such property is in the custody of a Court any question of title or priority arising between the decree holder and any other person, not being the judgment debtor, claiming to be interested in such property by virtue of any assignment, attachment or otherwise shall be determined by such Court."

The Rule specifically provides that the attachment shall be made by a notice to the Court or officer with are quest that the property, interest or dividend becoming payable thereon may beheld subject to the further orders of the Court. The mode of attachment provided under the Rule is different from attachment of movable property or immovable property outside the jurisdiction of the executing Court. In a case where amount due to a judgment debtor is in the custody of a Court or public officer, actual seizure of the property does not become necessary. As stated in R.52 attachment is effected by a notice to the Court or the officer as the case may be. In a case coming under R.52 the amount due to the judgment debtor is with the Court or public officer. When a notice is issued by the executing court the officer or the Court having the money of the judgment debtor is alerted of the claim of the attaching decree holder. It is not necessary for the officer of the executing Court to effect the actual seizure of the property. That is precisely the reason why the legislature in its wisdom thought it only necessary to issue notice calling upon the Court or the public officer to hold the money until further orders of the executing Court. As actual seizure by the court's officers is not contemplated in a case coming under R.52, it cannot be held that Court which passed the decree has no jurisdiction to attach amount due to a judgment debtor in the custody of another Court or public officer. As R.52 contemplates only notice to the Court or officer having the property of the judgment debtor and not the actual seizure by the executing Court's Officers it is obvious that the Rule is analogous to R.48 and therefore lack of territorial jurisdiction is not a valid plea.

4. In this context it is useful to refer to Gayour Ahmad Khan v. Hazarimal (AIR 1965 Rajasthan 41) where the Court held thus:

"The executing Court has jurisdiction under O.21 R.52 to attach a movable property which is in the custody of a Court outside the jurisdiction of the executing Court. This is one of the exceptions to the well recognised general rule of territorial jurisdiction which governs suits as well as execution of decrees".

5. It is true that the words "whether the judgment debtor or the disbursing officer is or is not within the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction" in R.48 are not there in R.52. Merely because of the absence of the above words in R.52 it cannot be held that the executing Court lacks jurisdiction to attach property of the