D.K. Kapur, J.
(1) The Revision petition under consideration was instituted by Shri Jagdish Chand u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to challenge an order of rateable distribution. There were three separate decrees passed against one Bhim Sain in suits decided by three different Subordinate Judges, all in Delhi. The details of those decrees is set out at length in the order sought to be challenged (passed by Shri G.P. Tharaja, sub Judge 1st class). It is only necessary to refer to the facts relevant to this petition which are :
(2) In the decree obtained by Jagdish Chand against the said Bhim Sain a house belonging to the judgment debtor was sold by the Court of Shri H.S. Bakshi and a sum of Rs. l2,000.00 was received. Out of this, one quarter of the consideration was recieved on 15.1.66 and the balance on 20.1.66. The sale was confirmed on 26.4 67 and a sale certificate issued. The two other decree-holders Ram Narain and Shiv Nath had their execution applications pending before some other Sub Judges. Both these execution applications were. transferred to the Court of Shri H.S. Bakshi by orders passed by District Judge, Delhi on 6 4 66. Then both of them filed application for rateable distribution on 12.4.66. about three months after the assets bad been received by the Court,
(3) The learned Sub Judge came to the conslusion that in the case of these executions as the execution applications had been moved (before, two Sud-Judges) before the assets were received, hence rateable distribution shall be ordered and he granted rateable distribution among the three decree-holders. In reaching this conclusion he has fully relied on Gurdial Kaur V.S. Satinder Singh (1964), 66 P.L.R. 1032 but has refered to a large number of reported cases decided by different High Courts which have largely taken a view that would favor the petitioner before us.