1. On an application for execution presented on 17th August 1932 six items of landed property were attached, and the decree was transferred to the Collector for execution on 14th April 1934. The actual order passed was, “the case struck off as transferred to Collector.” The form C, which was sent to the Collector, showed that Rs. 975-8-3 was to be realised. As the Collector thought this could be realised by sale of part of the attached property, he sold three items-only and these fetched Rs. 1,055. In the meantime, however, another decree-holder had come forward and asked for rateable-distribution, and as a result of this the decree-holder, at whose instance the execution was proceeding, obtained only about-half of what was due to him. He accordingly asked the civil Court to direct the Collector to sell the rest of the attached property, and the civil Court passed an order to that effect, but the Collector stated that he could do nothing on that order, the difficulty apparently being that the amount shown in the form C had already been recovered. The decree-holder then asked for another form C to be sent to the Collector, and this was eventually done.
2. The judgment-debtor contends in this Court that there was no application for execution pending when the second form 0 was sent to the Collector, that therefore this was a fresh application for execution, and that such an application was then barred by limitation under Section 48 of the CPC. Under the rules governing the execution of decrees transferred to Collectors, which are contained in Revenue Book Circular, III-8, the Collector has no power to dispose of the sale proceeds, but when he has realised them he must remit them to the civil Court together with the decree. The order of the civil Court on 14th April 1934 striking off the case was clearly, in my opinion, not an order dismissing the case. The case was bound to go back to the civil Court when the decree was returned by the Collector to the civil Court with the sale proceeds, and the order was merely one adjourning the proceedings until that date.
3. A subsequent application for the sale of the remainder of the attached property was, in my opinion, not a fresh application for execution either in form or substance, but merely an application ancillary to the substantive application. In this connexion I may refer to 21 All 1551 and 33 All 517.2 The application therefore for the sending of a second form C to the Collector was not barred by limitation. Another objection has been taken that this order was passed behind the back of the judgment-debtor. That is not so. On 27th April 1935, when the question was still under consideration, the judgment-debtor was present, and on that date the case was adjourned for further action. The judgment-debtor failed to appear on the subsequent dates fixed, and he is not entitled to say that he had no notice of the proceedings. The application for revision is therefore dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 25.
K.B/A.L
4. Revision dismissed.