JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - The only point we have to deal with on the present reference is tb&t which has been referred and no other. The question arises in this way : "The principal Defendant obtained judgment against three 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 sec. 295 of the Code, he is entitled to a proportionate distribution of the monies realized by the sale of the property of X, Y and Z, so far as those monies 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 sec. 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 sec. 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. I am also of opinion that this is a case which may properly come under sec. 295 of the CPC in which the claims of two rival judgment-debtors may be adjusted and satisfied. Sale, J. 2. I also agree in thinking that the case falls under sec. 295 of the CPC and may be dealt with under that section. Stevens, J. 3. I am also of the same opinion. Geidt, J. 4. I am also of the same opinion. Maclean, J. 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 refer.