P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS C. R. P. is filed against an order dated 27-11-1998 dismissing the E. P. No. 16 of 1998 in O. S. No. 2/82 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna district. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: e. P. 16 of 1998 in O. S. 2 of 1982 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, was filed by the revision petitioner. Though it was numbered as E. P. 16/98, the E. P. was actually presented on 19-3-1996. Respondent No. 11 in this revision had also obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 90 of 1979 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid and E. P. No. ll of 1991 was filed and in execution of the said decree the auction was held on 28-10-1997 and the amounts were realised on 28-10-1997 and 4-11-1997. ( 3 ) THE sale was confirmed on 20-1-1998 and the E. P. was closed on 20-4-1998. Incidentally, the Proprietor of Sri Lakshmi finance Company, revision petitioner herein, was the successful bidder and thus the auction purchaser. The Court below had mainly negatived the relief to the revision petitioner under Section 73 of the C. P. C. on the ground that the E. P. was not filed even before the receipt of assets. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. ( 4 ) SRI G. V. R. Chowdhary, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the assets were received in the year 1996, since the E. P. was presented in the year 1996 though it was numbered in the year 1998, the date of presentation of the e. P. alone should be taken for the purpose of claiming the benefits under Section 73 c. P. C. The learned Counsel has also drawn my attention to Section 73 C. P. C. which reads as follows:73. Proceeds of execution-sale to be rateably distributed among decreeholders: (1) 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 realisation, shall be rateably distributed among all such persons. " ( 5 ) MUCH stress has been made by sri G. V. R. Chowdhary on the expression before the receipt of such assets and had contended that the Court below had committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing the E. P. holding that the E. P. was not presented even before the receipt of assets. ( 6 ) SRI Vijayanandan Reddy, Amicus curiae had made elaborate submissions drawing my attention to several of the factual aspects. The facts need not be repeated again since they have been narrated already. The learned Counsel has also drawn my attention to a decision of a division Bench of Madras High Court in konchadu vs. Sundara Narayana and had pointed out the relevant para at page 92 which reads as follows: "we are unable to agree with this view. If it were necessary to base our decision on the presentation of the main execution application, we should have been prepared to hold that the execution application presented on 3rd july, 1931 was not really defective in law, as it referred to the attachment before judgment which had been ordered by that very Court. We may also refer in this connection to 52 Mad. 560 (1), where it was held that even if there were defects in the E. P. the petitioner will be entitled to the benefits of Sec. 73 if the petition was in substantial compliance with the law. In any event, under the provisions of order 21 Rule 17, when the execution petition was re-presented with the necessary amendments, it must be deemed to have been a valid presentation on the date of the original presentation itself. In the present case it seems to us to be scarcely necessary to rely upon the formal application for execution, because on the same day e. P. No. 52 of 1931 was also presented and so far as the properties sold by the sompeta District Munsif s Court on 23rd June are concerned, the only method of execution that the present plaintiff could have pursued was to ask the Sub-Court to send for the sale proceeds. " ( 7 ) FURTHER reliance was placed by sri Vijaynandan Reddy on the decisions in moka Jambanna vs. Kopparam Honnappa and peddi Reddi Gangaraju vs. Kandula mangamma and had contended that in substance the date of presentation of E. P. alone has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding whether a decree- holder is entitled to the benefits of section 73 C. P. C. or not. ( 8 ) IN the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid made in e. P. 16 of 1998 in O. S. No. 2 of 1982 dated 27-11-1998 dismissing the E. P. is totally unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. ( 9 ) THE C. R. P. is allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. ( 10 ) BEFORE parting with the case, this court records the appreciation for the assistance rendered by Sri Vijayanandan reddy appointed as Amicus Curiae.