JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a revision under Sec. 115, C.P.C. by Jagdish Prasad, judgment-debtor, against the order dated 15-10-1963 of the Civil Judge of Bareilly, allowing the application of Bankey Lal, decree-holder, for reteable distribution of the assets of the judgment-debtors. The property of the judgment-debtors was being sold in execution of the decree in suit No. 3 of 1957 and the request made in the application was for rateable distribution in respect of a decree in suit No. 2 of 1957 also. The decree-holder in both the cases is the same person, namely, Bankey Lal. There are only three judgment-debtors, namely, Jagdish Prasad and his three sons, in suit No. 3 of 1957, while in suit No. 2 of 1957 there is one more judgment-debtor, namely, the wife of Jagdish Prasad. 2. The order under revision is challenged on two grounds : firstly, that no assets were held by the Court, the property having not been auctioned by then; and secondly, that the judgment-debtors in the two cases being not identically the same, no application for rateable distribution was maintainable. 3. On the second point no opinion need be expressed in this revision. It can be allowed on the first ground, namely, that, at the time the prayer for rateable distribution was granted, no assets as contemplated by Sec. 73, C. P. C. were held by the Court. 4. Assets ordinarily include both movable and immovable properties, and not necessarily cash; but a perusal of Sec. 73, C. P. C. makes it clear that for purposes of this provision the term "assets" cannot be given such a wider meaning and cannot include immovable property, though after the auction thereof the sale proceeds would be assets liable to rateable distribution. Sec. 73 (1), C. P. C. runs as below: - "Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets, after deducting the costs of realization, shall be rate ably distributed among all such persons: 5. Provided as follows : - (a) Where any property is sold subject to a mortgage or charge, the mortgagee or encumbrancer shall not be entitled to share in any surplus arising from such sale; (b) where any property liable to be sold in execution of a decree is subject to a mortgage or charge, the Court may, with the consent of the mortgagee or encumbrancer, order that the property be sold free from the mortgage or charge, giving to the mortgagee or encumbrancer the same interest in the proceeds of the sale as he had in the property sold; (c) where any immovable property is sold in execution of a decree ordering its sale for the discharge of an encumbrance thereon, the proceeds of sale shall be applied - first; in defraying the expenses of the sale; secondly, in discharging the amount due under the decree; thirdly, in discharging the interest and principal monies due on subsequent encumbrances (if any); and fourthly, ratable among the holders of decrees for the payment of money against the judgment-debtor, who have, prior to the sale of the property, applied to the Court which passed the decree ordering such sale for execution of such decrees, and have not obtained satisfaction thereof. 6. Assets which are liable to rateable distribution are the assets after deduction of the costs of realization, which invariably arise out of the attachment and sale of property. Consequently, the assets shall be the sale proceeds less the costs of realization, and not the immovable property which is being auctioned in execution of a decree. This view finds confirmation from the words "receipt of such assets" used in the earlier part of the sub-section. Proviso (c) to the sub-section also leads to the same inference. This clause lays down how the sale proceeds of an immovable property sold in execution of a decree ordering its sale for the discharge of an incumbrance thereon, shall be applied. Proviso (c) to the sub-section also leads to the same inference. This clause lays down how the sale proceeds of an immovable property sold in execution of a decree ordering its sale for the discharge of an incumbrance thereon, shall be applied. The sale proceeds are applied first of all in defraying the expenses of the sale; secondly, in discharging the amount due under the decree; thirdly, in discharging the interest and principal monies due on subsequent incumbrances (if any); and fourthly, rateably among the holders of decrees for the payment of money against the judgment-debtor, who have prior to the sale of the property, applied to the Court which passed the decree ordering such sale for execution of such decrees, and have not obtained satisfaction thereof. The amount which can be rateably distributed among the decree-holders is thus the sale proceeds after deduction of the costs of realisation and after discharge of the incumbrances on the property auctioned. 7. In short, an order for rateable distribution can be passed only after the immovable property has been auctioned and not earlier. A similar view was expressed in Maddu Venkata Subbaiah v. Alane Adinarayana, A.I.R. 1954 (Andhra) 44. 8. The order under revision makes it clear that the property had not been auctioned by the time the rateable distribution was ordered. The order passed was thus premature and being without jurisdiction deserves to be set aside, though the question of rateable distribution can be considered afresh at a proper stage. 9. The revision is hereby allowed ex parte and the order under revision directing rateable distribution of the assets is set aside. It is, however, made clear that at an appropriate stage the question can be considered afresh, and rateable distribution ordered, if permissible under the law. Costs easy. Stay order is vacated. Revision allowed.