SARJOO PROSAD, C.J.—These are connected cases and arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances. They can be, therefore, conveniently disposed of by this judgment.

2. On the 8th of September, 1952, Ramkumar, who is the decree-holder appellant in the miscellaneous appeal, obtained decrees in different suits filed by him against defendants Kanhaiyalal and Hazarimal on the basis of Hundis. These suits were originally instituted in the Court of the Munsif at Sujangarh. On the abolition of that Court the suits were transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh, and later they actually came to be heard by the Court of the Civil Judge, Churu, to which the suits in question were transferred along with a number of other suits. It was the last Court which disposed of those suits and passed the decrees in question. Appeals preferred against the decrees were also dismissed with some modification. Kanhaiyalal, one of the judgment-debtors, preferred a second appeal to this Court. There was no appeal by Hazarimal. The decrees were set aside as against Kanhaiya Lal, but the decrees remained final and effective in so far as the other judgment-debtor Hazari Mal was concerned. The decree-holder Ramkumar then applied for transfer of the decrees for execution to the Court of the Civil Judge at Ratangarh, and the Court which passed the decrees acceded to the prayer. Thereafter Execution Cases Nos. 338 to 345 of 1932 were instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh. It happened that in one of the above cases; viz., No. 345 of 1952, the judgment-debtor Hazarimal applied to this Court for transfer of the execution case to some other Court under sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court by its order dated 31st July, 1953, directed the execution case to be transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Bikaner. Eventually the other execution cases also pending before the Court of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, were transferred to the Civil Judge of Bikaner, on the 27th of April, 1954. Inspite of this transfer it appears that the decree-holder did not take any further steps in those execution cases before the Court of the Civil Judge at Bikaner, as a result of which on the 24th of July, 1954, the execution cases were dismissed for default. On the same day the decree-holder started fresh execution cases in the Court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh. These were Execution Cases Nos. 230 to 238 of 1954. Before we proceed to observe as to what steps were taken in these execution cases it will be relevant to state that the records of the execution cases which had been transferred to the Civil Judge, Bikaner, were ordered to be sent back to the Court of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, on the 24th of August, 1954, and the records were actually received by that Court on the 28th of August, 1954. In Execution Case No. 230 of 1954 it appears that the decree-holder attached a sum of Rs. 7,200/- which was lying in deposit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, to the credit of the judgment-debtor Hazarimal and had been attached earlier and brought into Court in an execution case at the instance of one Hanuman Datt, against the same judgment debtor, Hanuman Dattas execution case having been latter dismissed. The decretal amount in execution in that case, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, came to only Rs. 1,804/6/- though the actual attachment was in respect of the entire sum of Rs. 7,200/-; but the other execution cases having been also pending before the same learned Civil Judge, he ordered the amount to be appropriated proportionately in part satisfaction of the various decrees.

3. In order to explain the nature of the dispute and the relationship of the parties in cases with which we are concerned, it would be necessary to refer to a few more facts as to how this sum of Rs. 7,200/- came to be attached and was in the custody of the Court of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh. It appears that one Malchand, father of Hansraj and other

Click Here to Read the rest of this document