Petitioner and the counter-petitioner had decrees against a common judgment-debtor. Permission was granted by the High Court to the counter-petitioner to bid at the auction and to set-off his claim under the decree against the purchase money. In pursuance of the permission, counter-petitioner purchased on 28th August 1918, one item of the judgment debtor's property. On the same date another property was sold to a stranger and he deposited the money on 10th September 1918. Apparently the counter-petitioner did not deposit the money. Petitioner applied for rateable distribution on the 29th August 1918. The Lower Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled to rateable distribution, in respect of the purchase money payable by the counter-petitioner, I think he is wrong. Under O. 21, R. 72 permission to bid and to set-off are made subject to the rights of decree-holders, under Sect. 73. There is nothing before me to show that the permission in the present case was of a different character. In my opinion the permission to set-off does not affect the right of a rival decree-holder to rateable distribution. See also Bijoy Kumar Addya v. Rama Nath Barman(1)
The judgment of the District Munsif in so far as it disallows rateable distribution is reversed and the case remitted to him for fresh disposal, in the light of the above observations. Costs will abide the result.
K. V. S.Petition allowed.