The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the validity of attachment and the jurisdiction for rateable distribution under sections 63 and 73 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Puranik, J—This is an application for revision against an order passed by the Court below under section 73 read with section 63 of the Civil Procedure Code. The applicant Radhawallabh obtained a decree against the non-applicants, Sudhakar and Kamlakar, in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. The decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Amraoti, in execution case no. 825 of 1937. The decree-holder attached the property of the judgment-debtor on the 24th August 1940, as the property was revenue-paying the execution proceedings were transferred to the Collector under Schedule III of the Civil Procedure Code for sale of the property. The property was actually sold on the 15th December 1942, and the sale proceeds were deposited in Court before the 15th January 1943. The Collector then returned the proceedings to the civil Court. An--other decree-holder, Dwarkadas, who is a non-applicant before me, also obtained a decree against the said Sudhakar and Kamlakar in the Bombay High Court and got it transferred to the Court'' of the Additional District Judge, Amraoti, in execution case no. 1982 of 1936. On the 7th July 1942 this decree-holder Dwarkadas caused the attachment of the same property which had already been attached by Radhawallabh. He then requested the Court of the Additional District Judge under section 63 read with section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code to send for the assets that were in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Second Class, for rateable distribution by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Amraoti. This application was opposed by Radhawallabh, the rival decree-holder, who contended that the attachment by Dwarkadas on the 7th July 1942 was during the pendency of the Collector proceedings in execution of Radhawallabh's decree and was thus void. He further contended that as there was no valid attachment by Dwarkadas the Court of the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction under section 63 of the Civil Procedure Code to send for the assets and distribute them as amongst the rival decree-holders. It was further urged that the decree-holder Dwarkadas not having applied to the proper Court before the assets were received by the Collector he was not entitled to rateable distribution of the assets received in execution of his (Radhawallabh's) decree, and that his application for rateable distribution was untenable.

2. The lower Court, viz., the Court of the Additional District Judge, Amraoti, overruled these contentions of Radhawallabh and held that the Court of the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to call for the assets realized by the Collector and held by the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Amraoti, for rateable distribution by itself at the instance of Dwarkadas. Radhawallabh being dissatisfied with this decision has come up in revision.

3. The question raised in revision is really one regarding jurisdiction and requires proper etermination. Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Code runs as under:

Where property not in the custody of any Court is under attachment in execution of decrees of more Courts than one, the Court which shall receive or realize such property and shall determine, any claim thereto and any objection to the attachment thereof shall be the Court of highest grade, or, where there is no difference in grade between such Courts, the Court under whose decree the property was first attached.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to invalidate any proceeding taken by a Court executing one of such decrees.

Section 73, so far as it is material for the purposes of this case, is as follows:

Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets, after de-ducting the c