Kanu Charan Mohanti vs Biswanath Khaitan

S.K. Chakravorty, J.—This rule is directed against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court at Alipore, u/s 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The facts giving rise, to the present application are not in dispute. Gne Biswanath Khaitan obtained a decree against H.P. Periera and put that decree into execution in Money Execution Case No. 27 of 1966 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court "at Alipore." The present Petitioner Kali Charan Mohanti also obtained a decree against Periera before the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Sealdah. In the meantime, insolvency proceedings were started against Periera and certain sums of money were lying in deposit with the Receiver appointed in that insolvency case in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court at Alipore. The Petitioner prayed for attachment of the money lying in the hands of the Receiver and this attachment was given effect to on May 31, 1966. This was done before the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Sealdah. Biswanath had also applied for attachment of the salary of Periera and also for attaching the money lying in the hands of the aforesaid Receiver before the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court at Alipore. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed that prayer. The writ of attachment under Order 21, Rule 52 of the CPC is dated. June 3, 1966, and the learned Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, to whom it was sent endorsed on the margin of this writ, that "the amount deposited in Insolvency Case 132/65 has been attached on May 31, 1966, in favour of D.H. of Small Cause Court Ex. Case No. 784 of 1966 of Small Cause Court Judge, Sealdah. So no action can be taken on this prohibitory order." Thereafter, Biswanath applied to the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Alipore, for ratable distribution of the money that was realised in the Small Cause Court, Sealdah. It appears also to be a fact that the money which was lying with the Receiver was sent to the learned Judge, Small Cause Court at Sealdah, sometime in July 1966, that is "to say, after the aforesaid endorsement had been made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court. The Petitioner Contended before the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court, that that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for ratable distribution and that was within the jurisdiction only of the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Sealdah. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to uphold this objection and overruled it and dismissed the petition of objection filed by the present Petitioner. Hence, this application.

Section 63 of the CPC presupposes that the property in question must be under attachment in execution of decree of more Courts than one. Mr. Santi Pada Chakravorty, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that in this case as the learned Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, refused to take any action on the writ of attachment, there has not been an attachment by the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court, of the money lying in the hands of the Receiver and, accordingly, Section 63 would have no application. Under Rule 52 of Order 21 of the CPC where the property to be attached is in" the custody of any Court or Public Officer, the attachment shall be made by a notice to such Court or Officer, requesting that such property, and any interest or dividend becoming payable thereon, may be held subject to further orders of the Court from which the notice is issued.

The learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court, had sent the writ under Order 21, Rule 52.of the CPC and it was the duty of the learned Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, who held that money, to give effect to it. If he had taken a wrong view of the matter, the rights of the decree-holder in the execution case before the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court, cannot be prejudiced. In the circumstances, it must be held that that money had also been attached while it was in the custody of that Court in the money execution case by the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court, in accordance with law. A similar point cropped up in Dr. Mrs. Elsie C Griffin Edward v. William Ainslie Cannon Howard AIR 1942 Oudh 277 and it was also held therein that the decree-holder for whose claim the Court had sent the order of attachment, latter was also entitled to ratable distribution 0f assets from the date of her application for execution. There also the Account-ant-Central duly received the latter, order of attachment intimate to the Court that the money could not be sent until the orders of attachment issued by other Courts previously had been fully complied with. In the circumstances, we must overrule this contention raised by Mr. Chakravorty.

Mr. Chakravorty lastly submits that the Small Cause Court Judge at Sealdah could not be held as subordinate to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court at Alipore. Mr. Chakravorty submits that the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Sealdah exercises jurisdiction upto the value of Rs. 2,000 whereas the learned Subordinate Judge exercises it upto the sum of Rs. 750 in Small Cause Court matters and as such the learned Small Cause Court Judge at Sealdah would be of the higher grade than that -of the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge in this particular case at Alipore was not exercising jurisdiction in Small Cause Court matters but in ordinary matters, where his jurisdiction is unlimited, whereas the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Sealdah can exercise jurisdiction only in Small Cause Court matters and that too upto the value of Rs. 2,000 only. In my view, therefore, the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore would be of a grade higher than that of the Small Cause Court Judge at Sealdah. Section 63 does not require that one Court should be subordinate to the another in the sense that the latter would have appellate or revisional jurisdiction over the former. It speaks only for higher gradation, vide Gouri Sankar Prosad Vs. Kashi Prosad Khaitan and Another, .

In this view of the matter, Section 63 would apply and the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court at Alipore, would be quite proper and the exercise- of his jurisdiction in this matter cannot be challenged.

The Rule fails and is accordingly discharged.

There will be no order as to costs in this Court.