AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this case a rule was issued calling upon the other side to show cause why the order of the Subordinate Judge giving rateable distribution under sec. 295 of the CPC should not be set aside. It appears that in a rent suit property was attached and sold, and on the judgment-debtor paying up the money, the sale was set aside and the property restored. That might happen either under sec. 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act or under sec. 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under both these sections, the money is deposited for payment to the decree-holder, and it would therefore seem that it must go to him and him only. Moreover, apart from the consideration just mentioned, there is great difficulty in saying that sec. 295 applies in this case. That section refers only to cases where assets are realized by sale or otherwise in execution of decree. We are not inclined to hold that this money was realized by any process or execution.
The rule is made absolute with costs. We assess the hearing fee at two gold mohurs.