HARDYAL HARDY, J. - (1.) An interesting question of law with regard to the attachment of money lying with a public servant outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court passing the decree, has been raised in this case.
(2.) The decree-holder filed an execution application against the judgment- debtors in which he sought to attach the amount due to the judgment-debtors from the Assistant Engineer, Jatog Sub-Division, Himachal Pradesh, Simla. On the execution application, this amount was attached and received by the Commercial Subordinate Judge Delhi from Simla and the same was handed over to the decree-holder. One of the judgement-debtors, Shri Harbans Singh Sobti, Managing Director of Harbans Singh Sobti & Co. Private Limited, filed an objection petition under Order XXI rule 58 Civil Procedure Code and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . At the same time another application under Section 39 read with Secclion 47 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was filed for the restitution of the attached and appropriated amount of Rs. 850.00 to Messers Harbans Singh Sobti and Co., judgment-debtor No. 1. A preliminary point was raised in this application that the Court had no jurisdiction to attach the amount lying outside the territorial limits of its own jurisdiction and that the decree-holder had to apply for the transfer of the decree to the Courts at Simla to attach the amount in question. On this ground it was stated that the attached amount could not have been attached by the Court and that the same be refunded to Messers H.S. Sobti & Co.
(3.) The learned Subordinate judge did not deal with the objection raised by H.S. Sobti & Co. that the amount was not due to Harbans Singh Sobti and Co. Private Limited but was due to a partnership firm which was distinct from the limited liability company. He proceeded on the assumption that the amount was due to the partnership firm, which was impleaded as judgment-debtor No. 1.;