M. Lal, J. - (1.) This civil revision filed by the decree holder arises out of an order refusing to grant reliable distribution under Section 73, CPC. Smt. Bhagwati Devi and others obtained a decree against the judgment debtor and got the money in deposit in favour of the judgment debtor attached from the City Board, Mussoorie through the Civil Judge, Dehra Dun. The money was received by means of cheque on 20th August, 1957 and the amount was Rs. 1467 and odd. During the mean time a decree in favour of the Petitioner was passed from the Munsif's Court Dehra Dun on 19th December, 1956. He put this decree into execution on 14th day, 1957 in the Court of the Munsif making two prayers. The first was that the money deposited with the custodian should be attached while the second was that an order for rateable distribution in suit No. 54 of 1954 i.e. in the decree of Smt. Bhagwati Devi and others, be made. No attachment of the money was made, nor the execution was transferred to the Civil Judge after the order of rateable distribution. It appears from the judgment that the order, which was passed by the Munsif, of rateable distribution was, "to rateably distribute the money attached with the custodian." A Robkar, which is on the file however, goes to show that a general Robkar for rateable distribution was issued towards the amount held by the Civil Judge in suit No. 54 of 1954 without mentioning whether it was for rateable distribution out of the custodian money or out of the money received from the City Board. The execution was also not transferred to the Civil Judge's court and remained pending in the Munsif's Court.
(2.) The prayer for rateable distribution made by the present applicant, decree holder, was rejected by the Civil Judge on three grounds. Firstly, because no attachment had been made, secondly, because no execution application had been made in his court as required by section 73, Code of Civil Procedure and thirdly because the order of rateable distribution related only to the money attached from the custodian. It is against this order that the present revision had been filed.
(3.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The order of the Civil Judge concludes the matter on the question of fact, though on point of law some of the observations made by the Civil Judge are not quite correct so far as the question of fact goes it appears that according to the order passed in the execution file by the Munsif rateable distribution was ordered only in the money attached from the custodian and not in the money which is now the bone of contention i.e. the money received through cheque from the City Board Mussoorie. This itself is sufficient to dispose of the revision.;