JUDGMENT Sir Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J. - The only point we have to deal with on the present reference is that which has been referred and no other. The question arises in this way : "The principal Defendant obtained judgment against the judgment-debtors, say X, Y and Z. The present Plaintiff obtained a judgment against X and Y only and he contends that, under the provisions of Section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he is entitled to a proportionate distribution of the moneys realized by the sale of the property of X, Y and Z, so far as those moneys represent the share of his own judgment-debtors X and Y in that property. The principal Defendant replies that he is not so entitled, because he does not bring himself within the provisions of Section 295, inasmuch as the decrees are not against the same judgment-debtor. The question we have to decide is whether the Plaintiff is entitled as he claims." The whole question turns upon whether, under such circumstances, the case falls within Section 295 of the Code. I was a member of the Court which referred the case and for the reasons which I gave in my judgment, which it is unnecessary to repeat and also for those which are very clearly stated by my colleague, Mr. Justice Banerjee, I consider that the question ought to be answered, as we then answered it, in the affirmative. Prinsep J. 2. I am also of opinion that this is a case which may properly come u/s 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which the claims of two rival judgment-creditors may be adjusted and satisfied. Sale J. 3. I also agree in thinking that the case falls u/s 295 of the CPC and may be dealt with under that section. Stevens J. 4. I am also of the same opinion. Geidt J. 5. I am also of the same opinion. Maclean C.J. 6. The result is that the decree of the lower Court is set aside and this appeal allowed with costs in, all Courts, including the costs of this reference.