Back
Rajasthan High Court
JAGAT NARAYAN,R. D. GATTANI
Laxmi Narain - Appellant
Versus
Firm Ram Kumar Suraj Bux - Respondent
First Appeals Nos. 73, 91 and 101 of 1962
Decided On : 07/22/1970
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTIONS 63, 73 - RATABLE DISTRIBUTION - DECREE-HOLDERS - EXECUTION OF DECREES - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - PROHIBITORY ORDERS - ATTACHMENT OF SALARY - COURT'S DUTY TO DISTRIBUTE ASSETS RATABLY - DECREE-HOLDER'S RIGHT TO RATABLE DISTRIBUTION - INTEREST ON DECRETAL AMOUNT.
Fact of the Case:
Four decree-holders obtained decrees against the same judgment-debtor and applied for execution of their decrees. They served prohibitory orders on the Executive Engineer who held a sum of money belonging to the judgment-debtor. The Executive Engineer sent the money to different courts, which distributed it among the decree-holders. One of the decree-holders, who had not applied for execution to the courts that received the money, filed a suit for rateable distribution under Section 73(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prohibitory orders served by the decree-holders were valid, even though the courts that received the money were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts that passed the decrees. The court also held that the decree-holder who had not applied for execution to the courts that received the money was entitled to rateable distribution under Sections 63 and 73 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court further held that the decree-holder was entitled to interest on the decretal amount from the date of service of notice on the judgment-debtor.
Issues: 1. Whether the prohibitory orders served by the decree-holders were valid, even though the courts that received the money were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts that passed the decrees? 2. Whether the decree-holder who had not applied for execution to the courts that received the money was entitled to rateable distribution under Sections 63 and 73 of the Civil Procedure Code? 3. Whether the decree-holder was entitled to interest on the decretal amount from the date of service of notice on the judgment-debtor?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prohibitory orders served by the decree-holders were valid, even though the courts that received the money were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts that passed the decrees, because Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code contains an enabling provision only and that the court which passed the decree has jurisdiction to execute it even outside the territorial limits of its ordinary civil jurisdiction. 2. The court held that the decree-holder who had not applied for execution to the courts that received the money was entitled to rateable distribution under Sections 63 and 73 of the Civil Procedure Code, because Section 63(1) only names the forum for making the rateable distribution and Section 63(2) only validates the distribution made by a forum which is not in accordance with Section 63(1). The distribution has however to be made in accordance with Section 73(1) and if it is not made in accordance with it, it is invalid and is not validated by Section 63(2). 3. The court held that the decree-holder was entitled to interest on the decretal amount from the date of service of notice on the judgment-debtor, because the judgment-debtor was liable to pay interest on the decretal amount from the date of service of notice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff in part. The court decreed a sum of Rs. 795/- in favour of the plaintiff as interest against Laxmi Narain in addition to the sum already decreed against him by the trial Court.
JAGAT NARAYAN, C.J. :- These three appeals arise out of a suit filed under Section 73(2), Civil P. C. by firm Ram Kumar Suraj Bux, against Laxmi Narain, Smt. Surya Kumari and the legal representatives of Samar Singh which was decreed in part by the Senior Civil Judge No. 1, Jaipur City.
2. The plaintiff firm Ram Kumar Suraj Bux as well as Samar Singh. Smt. Surya Kumari and Laxmi Narain, defendants obtained decrees against one Shiv Behari Tewari from different courts and put them into execution. The amounts of the decrees at the time of execution were as follows : -
Court Amount of decree
1. Plaintiff Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur 1,68,033.00
2. Samar Singh District Judge, Bhilwara 38,667.62
3. Laxmi Narain Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur 1,79,009.00
4. Smt. Surya Kumari Civil Judge, Shahpura (Bhilwara)
8,520.00
3. Shiv Behari Tewari worked as a contractor in the Irrigation Department. Payment of Rs. 57,509/- was to be made to him by the Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Kankroli. Kankroli is situated within the jurisdiction of District Judge, Udaipur. This payment was sanctioned by the Chief Engineer on 26th March, 1958. The decree-holders got prohibitory orders served on the Executive Engineer Kankroli in respect of this payment under Order 21, Rule 52, Civil P. C. as mentioned below :-
Decree-holder Court serving the order Amount ordered Date of service
Smt. Surya Kumari Civil Judge, Shahpura 8,508-11-0 15-10-57
Samar Singh District Judge, Bhilwara 10,000/- 25-10-57
" " " 15,000/- 10-12-57
Laxmi Narain Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur 84,000/- 14-3-58
Ram Kumar Suraj Bux Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur 63,800/- 31-3-58
4. Laxmi Narain got his execution transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur, and the latter court served the prohibitory order. Smt. Surya Kumari, Samar Singh and firm Ram Kumar Suraj Bux did not get their decrees transferred for execution to Udaipur Judgeship, but got the prohibitory orders served on the Executive Engineer Kankroli by the courts which passed the decrees, and in which their execution applications were pending.
5. The Executive Engineer Kankroli sent similar letters (Ex. 18) to the District Judge, Bhilwara, Civil Judge, Shahpura, the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur and the Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur on 8-4-1958 intimating to them that a sum of Rs. 57,509/- was payable to Shiv Behari Tewari, that prohibitory orders mentioned above were served on him by the above mentioned courts in respect of the amounts indicated in the above table and asking them how much money he should send to each of them. The District Judge, Bhilwara asked him to send Rs. 25,000/- to his court and the Executive Engineer complied with his order.
In the same way he sent Rs. 8520/- to the Court of Civil Judge Shahpura. The letter addressed to the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur was not put up before him for orders along with the file of the execution case and so no order was communicated by that court to the Executive Engineer. Consequently, no money was sent to the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur. The Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur, wrote to the Executive Engineer that he should send Rs. 25,000/- to the District Judge, Bhilwara and the balance to him. But the Executive Engineer sent Rs. 8,520/-to the Senior Civil Judge, Shahpura and the balance remaining after remitting this amount was sent to the Senior Civil Judge. Udaipur. This amount was Rs. 23,989/-.
6. Laxmi Narain got his execution transferred to the court of Civil Judge, Shahpura, on learning that a sum of Rs. 8,520/- had been sent to that court by the Executive Engineer, Kankroli. This amount was rateably distributed between Smt. Surya Kumari and Laxmi Narain by that court, the former getting Rs. 392.02 and the latter getting Rs. 8127.98. The District Judge, Bhilwara, paid the w
AI
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
