JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—The facts of the cases lie in a wide compass. However, it is not necessary to take into consideration all the facts in detail for the purposes of these two cases. 2. The minimal relevant facts are that there was a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) Firm by the name of Bishweswar Prasad Purosottam Das. At the relevant the members of the Firm were as follows : (i) Govind Ram (ii) Ram Prasad (1/3 share) (iii) Harihar Prasad (iv) Hari Shanker Prasad (v) Sadho Prasad (revisionist No.1 in this revision) (vi) Madho Prasad 3. The Firm owed money to different persons and there were income tax dues also against the Firm. 33 money decrees were passed against the Firm in favour of different persons. Several decrees were assigned to other persons. Maximum numbers of decrees, i.e. 21, were held by Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal, husband and wife. One of the decree holders, i.e. Rai B.P. Gupta instituted Execution Case No. 39 of 1956. Other decree holders also filed execution applications. In view of Section 73, C.P.C., providing for rateable distribution of all the assets of the judgment-debtors to different decree holders, all the execution applications were consolidated and Execution Case No. 39 of 1956 was made leading case. 13 properties of the judgment-debtors were attached on 8.10.1956 and receiver was also appointed on the said date. Income Tax Department in realization of income tax dues had also attached some of the said properties. Claim of the Income Tax Department was also directed to be considered by the executing Court in the said execution proceedings. One of the attached properties was property No. C-32/2 consisting of three settlement plots, i.e. Plot No. 42, area 0.61 acres, Plot No. 43 area 0.65 acres and Plot No. 44, area 0.81 acres total 2.07 acres (3 bighas 6 biswa 10 biswansis). The dispute survives only in respect of this property. 4. Ultimately on 30.8.1980, all the parties agreed to compromise/adjustment of decree. The compromise was that Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal would purchase Plot Nos. 42 & 43 of property No. C-32/2 from the judgment-debtors in full and final satisfaction of their decrees and they will also pay the decreetal amount of all other decree holders as well as Rs. 1 lac towards income tax dues. The compromise was that Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal would purchase Plot Nos. 42 & 43 of property No. C-32/2 from the judgment-debtors in full and final satisfaction of their decrees and they will also pay the decreetal amount of all other decree holders as well as Rs. 1 lac towards income tax dues. Prior to that order of auction sale had been passed but no auction had taken place. In the order dated 30.8.1980, the executing Court recorded as follows : “Learned counsel for the judgment-debtors argued that the judgment-debtors have no objection in case Plots No. 42 & 43 in premises No. C-32/2 be transferred to the decree holders Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal in lieu of the satisfaction of their decrees and the learned counsel for the aforesaid decree holders stated that they are ready to deposit in Court on the date of sale deed executed the amount in full satisfaction of the decrees of other decree holders including Rs. 1 lac towards the payment of income tax dues against judgment-debtors.” 5. Thereafter, on 15.9.1980 Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal under their signatures accepted the terms of adjustment as contained in the order dated 30.8.1980. Similarly on 14.10.1980, all the judgment-debtors including Sadho Prasad revisionist No.1 in this revision under their signatures accepted the terms of adjustment and agreed to transfer the plots in question to Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal. It has been stated by the learned counsel for revisionist in his written arguments that total outstanding income tax dues were about Rs. 148,624/-. 6. On 26.4.1983, executing Court formally certified the compromise and directed the judgment-debtors to execute the sale deed. On 28.4.1983, receiver was directed to execute the sale deed. Earlier the judgment-debtors except Ram Prasad had filed application for cancellation and postponement of the sale. The said applications were rejected on 19.7.1983 holding that by order dated 5.3.1983 they were directed to deposit decreetal amount but they had failed to do so. Against the said orders, three revisions were filed in this High Court by all the judgment-debtors except Ram Prasad being Revisions No. 374, 375 & 376, all of 1983. In the said revisions on 28.7.1983, a conditional stay order was passed directing the revisionists to deposit Rs. 6 lacs and staying further proceedings of the Execution Case. The amount of Rs. In the said revisions on 28.7.1983, a conditional stay order was passed directing the revisionists to deposit Rs. 6 lacs and staying further proceedings of the Execution Case. The amount of Rs. 6 lacs was deposited on 6.8.1983 before the executing Court. Thereafter, the judgment-debtors excluding Ram Prasad executed sale deed of Plots No. 42 & 43 in favour of Gulshan Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti for Rs. 7.5 lacs on 2.9.1983. The above orders and various other orders and copy of sale deed have also been annexed alongwith supplementary rejoinder affidavit in the revision dated 16.10.2004. In the sale deed dated 2.9.1983, it is mentioned that the property in dispute was attached in Execution Case No. 39 of 1956, that Rs. 5,000/- had been paid by the purchaser on 6.8.1983 under registered agreement for sale, that Rs. 60,000/- deposited with the Court receiver have been attached received by Income Tax Department towards part of income tax dues. It was further mentioned under Clause-3 in the sale deed that in the Civil Revision No. Nil of 1983, High Court had passed an order to deposit Rs. 6 lacs (Rs. 5 lacs as decreetal amount and Rs. 1 lac as balance of income tax dues) before the executing Court on 28.7.1983 which amount had been deposited by the purchaser in the executing Court on 6.8.1983, which sellers had accepted as earnest money. The executing Court on 29.9.1983 directed that copy of order appointing the receiver be sent to the Sub-Registrar and he must be informed that as the property is in the custody of the Court and in possession of the receiver, hence it could not be sold. The three revisions of 1983 were got dismissed as withdrawn on 10.9.1991 on the ground that adjustment had taken place between the parties. Thereafter, on 24.2.1992 all the judgment-debtors applied for execution of sale deed in favour of Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal. The Gulshan Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti applied for impleadment, which was objected to by all the judgment-debtors. On 20.5.1992, Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal paid Rs. 1 lac to Income Tax Department and also paid the decreetal amounts to other decree holders. Thereafter, sale deed was executed on 2.7.1992 by Receiver in favour of Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal and their son Ashok Kumar. On 20.5.1992, Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal paid Rs. 1 lac to Income Tax Department and also paid the decreetal amounts to other decree holders. Thereafter, sale deed was executed on 2.7.1992 by Receiver in favour of Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal and their son Ashok Kumar. Through order dated 17.11.1997, executing Court struck off the execution in full and final satisfaction rejecting the claims of all the parties including Gulshan Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti. The order dated 17.11.1997 passed by IInd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi has been challenged through this revision. 7. The aforesaid three revisions of 1983 in which interim order had been passed on 28.7.1983 under which Rs. 6 lacs were deposited were got dismissed as withdrawn on 10.9.1991. Almost the entire amount of Rs. 6 lacs deposited under the interim order dated 28.7.1983 had been withdrawn by the Income Tax Department under orders passed in the said revisions when they were pending. 8. At this juncture two questions require to be decided. The first is as to whether under interim order dated 28.7.1983 passed in the aforesaid three revisions of 1983, property in dispute could be sold to Gulshan Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti or not? The second is as to what would be the effect of dismissal of the aforesaid revisions of 1983 as withdrawn? 9. In the stay order, no permission to execute the sale was granted. Accordingly, property could not be sold under the said stay order. Moreover under the said stay order, it was not provided that the amount of Rs. 6 lacs to be deposited thereunder would be withdrawn by the decree holders. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the deposit of the said amount amounted to payment to decree holder and by virtue of Order 21 Rule 55, C.P.C., attachment automatically stood withdrawn thereupon. 10. As far as the question as to whether Income Tax Department could or could not withdraw the amount of Rs. 6 lacs deposited under interim order dated 28.7.1983 passed in the aforesaid three revisions of 1983 is concerned, the same cannot be adjudicated for the reason that in the revision Union of India or any officer of Income Tax Department is not a party. 11. 6 lacs deposited under interim order dated 28.7.1983 passed in the aforesaid three revisions of 1983 is concerned, the same cannot be adjudicated for the reason that in the revision Union of India or any officer of Income Tax Department is not a party. 11. All interim orders merge in the final order and after final decision/disposal of the case in whatever manner it may be interim orders passed therein do not remain in existence. If a case is dismissed either on merit or otherwise, anything done under interim order passed therein will have to be reversed unless in the judgment finally deciding the case such actions are saved. 12. When sale deed was executed in favour of Sahakari Samiti on 2.9.1983, attachment was continuing. Accordingly, by virtue of Section 64, C.P.C., the sale is void. Even in the sale deed it is mentioned that the properties were under attachment. Section 64, C.P.C. is quoted below : “Private Alienation of Property after attachment to be void.—Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt, dividend or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment.” 13. The aforesaid section uses the words as against all the claims enforceable under the attachment’. It does not use the words to the extent of claims enforceable under the attachment’. This provision may be compared with Order 21 Rule 64, C.P.C. which states that attached property or such portion thereof may be sold, which is necessary to satisfy the decree. 14. In the instant case, adjustment had already taken place on 30.8.1980 coupled with applications filed on 15.9.1980 and 24.1.1980. Adjustment may be executory also vide AIR 1964 AP 158 , P.C. Reddy and others v. P. Peddasubbareddi and another and AIR 1973 MP 148 , G.K. Vaish v. B. Bhushandas and another. Accordingly, in whatever manner Section 64, C.P.C. is interpreted, the private transfer dated 2.9.1983 was void as it was against the claim enforceable under the attachment. 15. In Civil Revision No. 374 of 1983, an order was passed on 27.3.1985 directing the executing Court to release a sum of Rs. 50,626/- in favour of the Income Tax Department. Accordingly, in whatever manner Section 64, C.P.C. is interpreted, the private transfer dated 2.9.1983 was void as it was against the claim enforceable under the attachment. 15. In Civil Revision No. 374 of 1983, an order was passed on 27.3.1985 directing the executing Court to release a sum of Rs. 50,626/- in favour of the Income Tax Department. It was further observed that “In case it is discovered subsequently that the amount deposited falls short of the decree, the applicants may be required to make good the deficiency as well”. The said order is Annexure-12 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit in the revision dated 16.10.2004. Learned counsel for revisionist argued that in view of the said order, it is quite clear that the amount of Rs. 6 lacs, which was directed to be deposited through interim order dated 28.7.1983 was as decreetal amount. I do not agree with this contention. Firstly, it was only an interim order. Secondly, it did not decide anything. 16. Annexure-14 to the above supplementary rejoinder affidavit is a letter by Tax Recovery Officer, Varanasi dated 12.8.1983 withdrawing the attachment order in respect of Plots No. 42 & 43 on the ground that all demand outstanding against the assignee were covered by the payments made and satisfactory arrangement for them the payment thereof. Annexure-16 to the said supplementary rejoinder affidavit is an order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax noting the contention of the judgment-debtors M/s Bisweshwar Prasad Puroshotam Das, HUF to the effect that they were not liable to pay interest. However, final decision was postponed. Even though the demand of the Income Tax Department was about Rs. 1,50,000/-, however it appears that almost the entire amount of Rs. 6 lacs deposited under the interim order dated 28.7.1983 was withdrawn by the Income Tax Department as the due amount and interest thereupon. At this juncture it is appropriate to note an interesting argument raised by learned counsel for both the parties. Each counsel argued that the other side had sounded the Income Tax Department regarding deposit of Rs. 6 lacs and thereupon the Income Tax Authorities withdrew the entire amount. 17. The question as to whether Income Tax Department was or was not entitled to withdraw the entire amount cannot be decided as Union of India or any officer of Income Tax Department is not a party in the revision. 18. 6 lacs and thereupon the Income Tax Authorities withdrew the entire amount. 17. The question as to whether Income Tax Department was or was not entitled to withdraw the entire amount cannot be decided as Union of India or any officer of Income Tax Department is not a party in the revision. 18. However, the property in dispute was attached for payment of income tax dues also. Payment of such dues is to be given preference. Under the adjustment dated 30.8.1980, the main decree holders Lalji Agrawal and his wife Manju Lata Agrawal could not assert that they would pay only an amount of Rs. 1 lac to the Income Tax Department, they were liable to pay the entire dues of the Income Tax Department. 19. Accordingly, Civil Revision is dismissed. However Lalji Agrawal and Manjulata Agrawal are directed to pay Rs. 6 lacs to Gulshan Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti positively within six weeks from today through draft or deposit the same before the executing Court for immediate payment to the said society failing which this order shall stand automatically vacated and revision shall be deemed to have been allowed. For the rest of the sale consideration, the cooperative society can initiate proceedings against the judgment debtors/sellers. 20. As far as the writ petition is concerned, it is directed against judgment and order dated 7.3.1991 passed by Board of Revenue, Allahabad. The facts relevant for the purposes of decision of the writ petition are that in some winding up proceedings, Calcutta High Court on 17.2.1965 appointed a liquidator, who executed some sale deed of the property in dispute in the revision in favour of Gayatri Devi wife of Ram Prasad one of the judgment-debtors. However, in the execution case giving rise to the revision, the said sale deed was held to be fictitious and collusive through order dated 2.1.1970. F.A.F.O. filed against the said order was also dismissed. Smt. Gayatri Devi also filed O.S. No. 29 of 1975, which was compromised and she abandoned her rights in the property in dispute. Accordingly, a decree was passed on 3.12.1990. 21. Jal Sansthan, Varanasi on 7.3.1983 attached the property in dispute for realization of water tax dues from Smt. Gayatri Devi amounting to Rs. 27,000/- and odd and property was auctioned on 28.4.1983 in favour of Om Prakash, petitioner for Rs. 1,50,000/-. Accordingly, a decree was passed on 3.12.1990. 21. Jal Sansthan, Varanasi on 7.3.1983 attached the property in dispute for realization of water tax dues from Smt. Gayatri Devi amounting to Rs. 27,000/- and odd and property was auctioned on 28.4.1983 in favour of Om Prakash, petitioner for Rs. 1,50,000/-. The said auction was confirmed by the Commissioner, however Board of Revenue set aside the said order in Revision No.1 (Sale) L.R. of 1984-85, Ashfaq v. Om Prakash and others (Ashfaq was Court receiver). In the said order dated 7.3.1991, it is mentioned that value of the property is about Rs. 38 lacs. Collector had valued it at Rs. 2,25,000/- and it was sold for Rs. 1,50,000/- as against the payment of Rs. 27,000/-. 22. In any case, property in dispute was already under attachment and in custody of the Court receiver by virtue of order dated 8.10.1956 passed in Execution Case No. 39 of 1956, hence Jal Sansthan, Varanasi could not sell it. 23. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence the same is dismissed. However, Lalji Agrawal and Manju Lata Agrawal are directed to clear all the dues of Jal Sansthan in respect of the property in dispute within two months failing which the property may be put up for auction again by Jal Sansthan. ————