Wanchoo, C.J —This is an appeal by the decree-holder in an execution matter.

2 The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly narrated. The appellant, Hanumandutt, decree-holder, got a decree for Rs. 7195/15/-against the judgment debtor, respondent Hazarimal, from the court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh. In execution of that decree, he applied for attachment of a sum of Rs. 7200/- which was due to Hazarimal from the Public Works Department at Bikaner. A notice was issued under O. XXI, R. 52 to the Executive Engineer, Bikaner, requesting him that the money may be held subject to further orders of the court. In response to this notice, the Executive Engineer sent the whole amount to the Court at Ratangarh and it was received there on the 15th of April, 1952. The actual amount that remained in the hands of the court was Rs. 7191/-, the remaining being the transmission charges. On the same day the judgment-debtor objected that the attachment of the money was illegal and, therefore, the court had no right to proceed with the execution so far as that money in its hands was concerned. This objection of the judgment-debtor found favour with the court and it refused to execute the decree against the money which was in its own bands Consequently, this appeal.

3. There is no doubt that there was an irregularity in this case inasmuch as the Executive Engineer, Bikaner, was outside the jurisdiction of the court and the debt also appeared to have been payable outside the jurisdiction of the court. The proper procedure under the circumstances was for the court to transfer the decree to the court having jurisdiction in Bikaner so that this money might be attached. By mistake, however, the court issued a notice under O. XXI, R. 52 C. P. C. to the Executive Engineer, Bikaner and that Officer deposited the money in response to the notice in the court at Ratangarh. It was thereafter that the judgment-debtor objected that the attachment was illegal and, therefore, execution should not proceed against this money.

4. We are of opinion that the court below was wrong in refusing to proceed with the execution once the money had come in its hands. It has relied on two cases in particular, namely Bissesserdas Daga vs. Gabdumal Brahmin (1) and Narendra Prasad Sinha vs. Maharani Janki Kuer (2). It failed to notice, however, that in the case of Bissesserdas Daga the objection to the attachment was made by the garnishee against whom the prohibitory order had been passed under O. XXI R. 45 C. P. C. The case of Narendra Prasad Sinha is also, in our opinion, clearly distinguishable, in that case the money never reached the court which was executing the decree. The judgment-debtor in that case made the objection before the money reached the court and after the Municipal Board had already given him a cheque to take away the amount which was in deposit with the Board. It may also be mentioned that it was with reluctance that one of the Judges agreed to the order proposed in Narendra Prasad Sinhas case.

5. The principle, to our mind, which applies in such a case is clear. Where there has been any irregularity in the attachment and as a result of that irregularity, the interest of a third party is effected, be he the garnishee or a co-decree holder, he can certainly object to the attachment, before the money is paid in court. But, where after the money is paid into court, the judgment-debtor comes forward to object on the basis of some irregularity in the process of attachment, it is enough to say that the court should not allow the judgment-debtor to raise such an objection, for that would be allowing him to abuse the process of the court. Learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to a number of cases in this connection. The earliest of these cases is Abdul Gafur vs. W.J. Albyn (3). In that case also the court which had issued the notice under Order XXI, rule 52 had no jurisdiction over the officer to whom the notice had been issued. The officer originally did

Click Here to Read the rest of this document