The Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. vs B. Dharam Singh And Co. (P) Ltd. And Ors. on 18 May, 1972
(22) Shri Ved Vyas sought to derive support from the two decisions of the Bombay High Court : Lalchand Radhakisan v. Ramdayal Ramnarayan, Air 1939 Bombay 112(2) and Ningappa Neelappa Katti v. Adiveppa Tuppad and others (A.I.R. 1939 Bombay 468) O. In the former case Beaumont, C. J. observed, but without any discussion, that even though the question arose in that case under Section 73 Civil Procedure Code and no appeal normally lay against an order passed under Section 73, an appeal would lie if the rateable distribution affected not only the creditors inter se but the surety to a considerable extent and the judgment debtor to a lesser extent. Not only Section 47 Civil Procedure Code but Section 145 C.P.C. was also invoked. Beaumont, C. J. stated that even if an appeal did not lie the appeal could have been treated as a revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code This decision was followed in the latter case by Lokur, J. The facts in that case were that the judgment debtor had produced the money in the Court for specsific purpose and contended that it must be handed over to a certain decree-holder.