ORDER : P.B. BALAJI, J. The Union of India as a third party has approached this Court by way of the above revisions, challenging the order of the Trial Court in I.A. No.1 of 2020, I.A. No.743 of 2019 and I.A. No.489 of 2019 in I.A. No.363 of 2019 in O.S. No.466 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Salem. 2. The case of the revision petitioner is that the third respondent who was an employee under the Department of Post has misappropriated a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- for which he was suspended from his service and steps were initiated for recovering the money misappropriated by the employee. In the meantime, his wife and daughter filed a suit against the employee, viz., the 3 rd respondent seeking maintenance in O.S.No.466 of 2012. In the said suit, an ex-parte decree came to be passed and the respondents 1 and 2 sought to execute the same by filing Execution Petition by bringing the property of the 3 rd respondent for sale through Court auction. 3. In Execution Proceedings, the auction purchaser who bid for the property successfully also deposited a sum of Rs.15,25,000/- in Court and the 1 st respondent/wife of the employee, filed a petition for a payment of Rs.7,99,584/- in I.A.No.362 of 2019. The said Application was not opposed by her husband viz., the 3 rd respondent and consequently, the amount was withdrawn by the 1 st respondent. When a similar Application was filed by the 2 nd respondent/daughter of the 1 st and 3 rd respondent, the revision petitioner filed an Application objecting to the withdrawal and also seeking to implead itself. 4. The revision petitioner also filed an Application for claiming the amount due to the petitioner from the 3 rd respondent. The Trial Court dismissed all these Applications, as against which the present revision petitions have been filed. 5. I have heard Mr.G.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for R1 and R2. The 3 rd & 4 th respondents have chosen to stay away from the proceedings despite service of summons. 6. The Trial Court dismissed all these Applications, as against which the present revision petitions have been filed. 5. I have heard Mr.G.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for R1 and R2. The 3 rd & 4 th respondents have chosen to stay away from the proceedings despite service of summons. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the decree obtained by the respondents 1 & 2 is clearly a collusive decree and the husband, 3 rd respondent, employee of the revision petitioner did not even choose to contest the proceedings and there were no matrimonial proceedings between the 1 st respondent and 3 rd respondent and all of them resided in the very same premises, which all clearly go to show that the decree was obtained only to defeat the rights of the revision petitioner. The learned counsel would therefore submit that if the remaining amount is also withdrawn by the daughter of the employee of the revision petitioner, then nothing would remain for the revision petitioner to recover the misappropriated amount of Rs.26,00,000/-. He would therefore seek for the revision petitions being allowed and the orders passed by the Trial Court to be set aside. 7. Per contra, Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 would submit that the decree is not a collusive decree and the property was also sold in Court auction, subject to an earlier mortgage and therefore, the petitioner can only proceed against the purchaser and not against the respondents. He would further submit that maintenance decree is not a debt and therefore, Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will not apply. He would further submit that the alleged amount liable to be paid by the 3 rd respondent is also not ascertained or determined as on date. Even according to the revision petitioner, the case has not only been filed against the 3 rd respondent, but also against two other persons and in absence of a determined sum of money, the Applications filed by the revision petitioner cannot be entertained. Even according to the revision petitioner, the case has not only been filed against the 3 rd respondent, but also against two other persons and in absence of a determined sum of money, the Applications filed by the revision petitioner cannot be entertained. He would also submit that two suits are pending in O.S.No.32 of 2020 and O.S.No.30 of 2019 and unless the said suits are decided in favour of the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner has no locus to seek impleadment and to object to the payment out Application filed by the 2 nd respondent. 8. He would also place reliance on the following decisions: (i) Manickam Chettiar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Madurai, reported in AIR 1938 Madras 360; (ii) P.Amutha Vs. Gunasekaran, reported in MANU/TN/9375/2022; (iii) K.Karunakaran and others Vs. The Chief Manager/Authorised Officer Assets Management Branch, State Bank of India and two others, reported in (2010) SCC Online Mad 3828; and (iv) Allahabad Bank Vs.Canara Bank and another, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 406 . 9. Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been usefully relied on by the respondents 1 and 2, is extracted hereunder for easy reference: Section 73: Proceeds of execution sale to be rateably distributed among decree-holders. 9. Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been usefully relied on by the respondents 1 and 2, is extracted hereunder for easy reference: Section 73: Proceeds of execution sale to be rateably distributed among decree-holders. (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 realization, shall be rateably distributed among all such persons : Provided as follows:— (a) where any property is sold subject to a mortgage or charge, the mortgage or incumbrancer 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 incumbrancer, order that the property be sold free from the mortgage or charge, giving to the mortgagee or incumbrancer 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 in cumbrance 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 incumbrances (if any); and fourthly, rateably among the holders of decrees for the payment of money against the judgement-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 no obtained satisfaction thereof. (2) Where all or any of the assets liable to be rateably distributed under this section are paid to a person not entitled to receive the same, any person so entitled may sue such person to compel him to refund the assets. (3) Nothing in this section affects any right of the Government. 10. Admittedly in the present case, the revision petitioner has challenged the maintenance decree passed in O.S.No.466 of 2012. (3) Nothing in this section affects any right of the Government. 10. Admittedly in the present case, the revision petitioner has challenged the maintenance decree passed in O.S.No.466 of 2012. That apart, the petitioner has filed a suit seeking the recovery of amounts that has been allegedly misappropriated by the 3 rd respondent. 11. The question whether the decree obtained by the respondents 1 & 2 in O.S.No.30 of 2019 is collusive or not is the subject matter of a Civil Suit which is admittedly pending. Even the amounts which may be due to the revision petitioner have not been determined or ascertained as on date since civil cases are pending even in this regard. However, at the same time the revision petitioner is entitled to seek protection of the amounts that may be decreed in favour. 12. As held in Manickam Chettiar’s case (referred herein supra), if the Court was asked to pay out money to A with certain knowledge money that the money belongs to B, it would decline to do so and would make sure B got it. The ratio would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. However, since the amount is not yet ascertained and the same will be known only when the other pending suits are disposed of, in the interregnum period, it is just, equitable and proper to ensure that at least the remaining amount in Court deposit is not paid out to the 2 nd respondent, especially when the maintenance decree itself is under challenge in O.S.No.466 of 2012. Already substantial sum has been withdrawn by the 1 st respondent, wife and if the payment out is ordered in favour of the 2 nd respondent as well, nothing will remain for the revision petitioner in the event of succeeding in the suits challenging the maintenance suit and always claim recovery of money from the 3 rd respondent. 13. Insofar as the decision of this Court in K.Karunakaran's case (referred herein supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court relying on Section 73 CPC held that Section 73 would apply only when there is a decree or order of adjudication and not otherwise. The Hon'ble Division Bench was testing a case of priority of the Bank in respect of proceeds of property secured for the debts of the employer. 14. The Hon'ble Division Bench was testing a case of priority of the Bank in respect of proceeds of property secured for the debts of the employer. 14. In P.Amudha’s case, (referred herein supra), this could held that maintenance is a measure of social justice to protect women and therefore it cannot be exempted under Section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871 and in that context proceeded to hold that maintenance granted to the wife cannot be considered as a 'debt' and that the wife is not a creditor and consequently exemption under Section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871 cannot be granted to the husband. 15. In Allahabad's case (referred herein supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that referring to Section 73 CPC held that sharing of proceeds realised under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993, (in short 'RDB Act') is permissible only if such person seeking share has obtained a decree or an order of adjudication from the Tribunal and also complied with the other conditions as laid down under Section 73 of CPC and when the Bank had not obtained any decree or adjudication of its debt from the Tribunal, no relief can be granted on the basis of the above said principles. 16. The facts of the present case are quite peculiar in nature. The wife and daughter, viz., respondents 1 & 2 have filed a suit for maintenance against the husband and father, viz., the 3 rd respondent. The 3 rd respondent remained ex-parte and did not choose to contest the suit. The said decree is now admittedly under challenge at the instance of the revision petitioner, in O.S.No.466 of 2012 on the ground that decree has been obtained collusively and only to defeat the interests and rights of the revision petitioner and yet another suit in O.S.No. 30 of 2019 is also pending where the revision petitioner has sought for recovery of the amounts misappropriated by the 3 rd respondent. 17. The said suits are pending and in the light of Section 73 of CPC, there is now doubt set out as to whether the proceeds of execution- sale are to be relatably distributed amongst the decree holders. 17. The said suits are pending and in the light of Section 73 of CPC, there is now doubt set out as to whether the proceeds of execution- sale are to be relatably distributed amongst the decree holders. As seen from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed herein above, there must be a decree or adjudication in favour of the person claiming relatable distribution and the same is a pre condition. However, Section 73(3) clearly states that nothing in Section 73 shall affect any right of the Government. Therefore the revision petitioner is exempted from the Application of Section 73. 18. In all the cases that have been relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is not a case where the Government is a party and therefore, the Courts had no occasion to discuss the applicability of Section 73(3). In the present case, the revision petitioner is admittedly Government and therefore Section 73, clearly does not apply to affect the rights of the revision petitioner. In such circumstances, Section 73 does not apply to the facts of the present case. 19. Unfortunately, the Trial Court lost sight of the exemption in favour of the revision petitioner and erroneously proceeded to held that without succeeding in the suits in O.S.No.32 of 2020 and O.S.No.30 of 2019, the revision petitioner cannot maintain the interlocutory applications. 20. For all the above reasons, I am inclined to interefere with the order of the Trial Court and these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. There shall be no order as to costs. I also direct that the suits in O.S. No.32 of 2020 and O.S. No.30 of 2019 pending on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Salem shall be disposed of within a period of 6 months and subject to the outcome of these two suits, the Application of the 2 nd respondent, daughter of the third respondent and the Application of the review petition claiming the balance amount shall be accordingly dealt with, within a period of two months thereafter.