Judgment 1. The question that arises for consideration in this civil revision application is as to whether the opposite party No. 6, Madanlal Agarwala was entitled to get rateable distribution along with the petitioner in certain money. 2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows : The petitioner filed Money Suit No. 119 of 1969 against opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Jamshedpur for a decree for Rs. 46,000. Against the same judgement-debtors (opposite party Nos. 1 to 5), Execution Case No. 67 of 1971 was levied by one Banwarilal Agarwala for realisation of certain money in the Court of the same Subordinate Judge. After fully satisfying the decree of Banwarilal Agarwala, a sum of Rs. 18,000 was found in excess and was separately deposited by a chalan in the said Execution Case No. 67 of 1971. 3. The petitioner had attached before judgement the said sum of Rs. 18,000. The suit of the petitioner was decreed on 13-12-1971 and then he put the decree in execution in Execution Case No. 146 of 1971 on 20-12-1971. The decree being for more than the sum of Rs. 18,000 which was attached before the judgement, the petitioner, besides praying for payment of the said sum of Rs. 18,000, also prayed for attachment of certain other bills of the judgement-debtors. I am not, however, concerned with the details of those bills. It is not clear as to what orders were passed in the execution case of the petitioner in regard to his prayer with respect to the said sum of Rs. 18,000, but it appears that the amount in question was brought to the Execution Case of the petitioner from the case in which it was earlier deposited. 4. Opposite Party No. 6 had filed Money Suit No. 43 of 1970 in the same court of the Subordinate Judge for realisation of certain money against the same judgement-debtors and had also got the aforesaid sum of Rs. 18,000 attached before judgement. The aforesaid suit of opposite party No. 6 was also decreed on 19-6-1972 and on the same day he levied execution, his Execution Case being No. 54 of 1972, and also made a prayer that the sum of Rs. 18,000 attached before judgement. The aforesaid suit of opposite party No. 6 was also decreed on 19-6-1972 and on the same day he levied execution, his Execution Case being No. 54 of 1972, and also made a prayer that the sum of Rs. 18,000 lying in deposit may be rateably distributed as excess amount in Execution Case No. 67 of 1971, which was attached before judgement in Money Suit No. 43 of 1970. On this prayer, the learned Subordinate Judge by his order D/- 22-6-1972, after dispensing with the requirement of O.21, R.22 of the Civil P.C. directed for attachment of the said money lying in deposit in Execution Case No. 67 of 1971. Accordingly, a prohibitory order under O.21, R.53 of the Civil P.C. was issued from the Court of the Subordinate Judge to the Judge Incharge of Accounts, Jamshedpur requesting him to "hold the said money subject to the further orders of this Court." 5. It has been seen that the amount in question was the result of the surplus which was found after satisfying the decree in Execution Case No. 87 of 1971 of the same Court levied by Banwarilal Agarwala, and inasmuch as the amount was surplus, it seems to have been put under the charge of the Judge Incharge of Accounts. The amount, however, must be deemed to be held by the Court below. 6. The records of Execution Case No. 146 of 1971 have not been received from the Court below, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the entire order sheet at the time of hearing of this application, and from the said order sheet I find that the petitioner had again taken steps for attachment of the said amount of Rs. 18,000 in his execution proceeding, although that amount was also got attached by him before the judgement passed in his suit. 7. Be that as it may, the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the claim of opposite party No. 6 solely on the ground that "he had obtained an attachment before judgement during the money suit itself......" 8. 18,000 in his execution proceeding, although that amount was also got attached by him before the judgement passed in his suit. 7. Be that as it may, the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the claim of opposite party No. 6 solely on the ground that "he had obtained an attachment before judgement during the money suit itself......" 8. It was contended by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner before me that the learned Subordinate Judge has committed an apparent error of jurisdiction in allowing the claim of rateable distribution of opposite party No. 6 merely on the ground that he had attached the amount in question before the judgement in his Money Suit No. 43 of 1970. The contention advanced, as it is, must be accepted as correct, inasmuch as an attachment before judgement confers no right on the party who obtained the attachment. The actual benefit which he gets by such attachment is that when he applies subsequently for execution, he need not reattach the property and that any private dealing of the property in question after the date of attachment will not be binding. But simply because a decree-holder has obtained an attachment before judgement of his debtors property, he will not thereby become entitled to get rateable distribution under S.73 of the Civil P.C. unless, like other decree-holders, he applies for execution after getting the decree. It has to be seen as to whether the claim of rateable distribution of opposite party No. 6 on the facts and circumstances of this case can well be upheld under the provisions of S.73 of the Code. 9. The essential conditions to enable a decree-holder to claim rateable distribution of the assets of the judgement debtor under S.73 of the Civil P.C. are as follows :- (1) The assets must be held by the Court. (2) The decrees obtained by the decree-holder and the attaching creditor must be decrees for the payment of money. (3) Such decrees should have been obtained against the same judgement-debtor. (4) The claimant for rateable distribution must have applied for execution to the Court by which the assets are held, and (5) Such application should have been made before the receipt of assets by the Court. It is not disputed that all the first four conditions are fulfilled in this case. The sum of Rs. (4) The claimant for rateable distribution must have applied for execution to the Court by which the assets are held, and (5) Such application should have been made before the receipt of assets by the Court. It is not disputed that all the first four conditions are fulfilled in this case. The sum of Rs. 18,000 was being held by the executing Court, the decrees are for payment of money and have been obtained against the same judgement-debtors and that applications for execution of the decrees have been made to the same Court which is holding the assets, namely, the Court below. 10 Still, in order to qualify for rateable distribution. Opposite Party No. 6 had to satisfy the fifth and the last condition also, namely, that his execution application in this case should have been made before the receipt of the assets by the Court. The distinction between the "assets held by the Court" and "receipt of the assets by the Court" must be well understood. A Court may hold the assets in many ways, although the same may not have been actually received by it. I would better illustrate it, in order to bring home the distinction. If by an order of attachment certain amount lying with any person is attached either before the judgement or in course of execution, the assets will be simply deemed to be held by the Court. It will he deemed to have been received only when in pursuance of some further order of the Court or otherwise, the attached property is actually received by the Court. The execution case of the petitioner was filed on 20-12-1971, his decree being for more than Rs. 46,000. In his execution application, he also made a prayer for realisation of his decretal dues, inter alia, by payment of the said sum of Rs. 18,000 deposited in Execution Case No. 67 of 1971. Nothing has been shown that before the execution petition of Opposite Party No. 6 was filed i.e. on 19-6-1972, the sum of Rs. 46,000. In his execution application, he also made a prayer for realisation of his decretal dues, inter alia, by payment of the said sum of Rs. 18,000 deposited in Execution Case No. 67 of 1971. Nothing has been shown that before the execution petition of Opposite Party No. 6 was filed i.e. on 19-6-1972, the sum of Rs. 18,000 which was deposited under Chalan No. 234 dated 19-11-1971 and was put under the charge of the Judge Incharge of Accounts, was received by the Executing Court; rather, as already shown earlier, the learned Subordinate Judge issued a prohibitory order in the execution case of opposite party No. 6 under the provision of O.21, R.52 of the Civil P.C. In order that S.93 of the Code may apply, it is necessary that the assets should have reached the hands of the Court in execution, i.e. on the execution side. The assets in question (Rs. 18,000) was, therefore, not received nor will be deemed to have been received by the Court merely on the filing of the execution petition by the petitioner, for the fact that it was already attached earlier. 11. In my opinion, the Opposite Party No. 6 is entitled to rateable distribution. I would, therefore, uphold the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, but for the reasons entirely different than his. 12. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed; but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.