The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of territorial jurisdiction for the attachment and execution of a decree, as well as the conditions precedent to a court executing a decree.

Mangalmurti, J—The facts leading to this application for revision are briefly as follows:

2. One Gyarsilal obtained a decree on 16th January 1928 in civil suit No. 34 of 1926 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Bhandara, against Malhar Rao, father of Shankar Rao, Mahadeo Rao and Bholanath (non- applicants 1 to 3 before me). This decree was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Raipur, on 26th . November 1945. On 14th December 1945 the decree-holder Gyarsilal filed an application for execution of that decree and prayed under Order 21, Rule 52, Code of Civil Procedure, for attachment of the deposit of Rs. 19,000 made by the three brothers, namely Shankar Rao, Mahadeo Rao and Bholanath, in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, as per order of that Court to obtain time to move this High Court for staying the execution of the decree in civil suit No. 19 of 1927 which one Kalyanjibhai had obtained against the three brothers and which was in appeal before this High Court. The number of the civil Court deposit was 64 B dated 20th June 1944. This attachment was effected on 15th April 1946 and on 27th June 1946 an order was passed by the executing Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Raipur, to the effect that the execution be struck off, but the attachment of Rs. 19.000 be continued for a period of one year from 27th June 1946.

3. During this period of one year, this High Court dismissed on 6th November 1946 miscellaneous appeal No. 43 of 1940 which was filed by Shankar Rao and others. On 16th November 1946 Gyarsilal applied to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, to pay the amount of Rs. 19,000 in civil Court deposit No. 64-B of 20th June 1944 to him as it was under his attachment. Nazir's report whether there was such a deposit was called for and he made a report on the very application on 18th November 1946 mentioning that the amount was in deposit. No further action was taken on that application of Gyarsilal dated 16th November 1946 till 28th July 1947 when this fact, namely that no action was taken on that application, was brought to the notice of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, by its reader in the proceedings started by the non-applicant 4 Shamrao against the non-applicants 1 to 3 viz., Shankar Rao, Mahadeo Rao and Bholanath. Shamrao and his cousin Parashram had filed civil suit No. 31 of 1927 in the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Nagpur, and obtained a decree on 18th December 1927 again Malhar Rao. The decree-holders got this decree transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bhandara, in 1933-34, but no recoveries were made till the year 1946. During this period the judgment-debtor Malhar Rao died on 22nd August 1937 and Parashram (cousin of Shamrao non-applicant 4) died on 8th October 1988. On 19th February 1946 Shamrao made an application to the Bhandara Court, praying for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased Malhar Rao and Parashram in their places and on that very date he applied to that Court for attachment of the sum of Rs. 19,000 which was in civil Court deposit No. 64B of 20th June 1944 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur. The Court of the Additional District Judge, Bhandara, thereupon ordered the issue of a prohibitory order under Order 21, Rule 52, Code of Civil Procedure, and it was duly served on the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, on 9th May 1946. The legal representatives of the deceased Malhar Rao and Parashram were brought cm record on 14th December 1946.

4. On 11th January 1947, the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bhandara, asked the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, to remit the amount to it, but the latter refused to do so. Shamrao (non-applicant 4) again applied to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bhandara, requesting it to send for the amount of Rs. 19,000 from the Court of the Additiona