Union Of India (Uoi), D-Ward, Through ... vs Mahadeo Prashad And Ors. on 15 September, 1965
9. Shri D.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Secy. of State, A I R 1935 Lah 319 (2) and Associated Pictures v. Union of India, AIR 1959 Cal 179, in support of the opposite view. In the former case, it was held by the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court that it was not open to an executing Court to entertain a claim on behalf of the Government in respect of Government dues in the absence of a decree in support of it. In considering the implications of Section 73(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Judges observed that this section did not confer any jurisdiction on the executing Court to entertain any claim on behalf of the Government in the absence of any decree in support of it. This sub-section only saves the rights of the Government independent of the section, such as they might be and merely appears to have reference to the right of priority which can be ordinarily claimed in respect of the debts due to the Government. But where the Government had not obtained any decree in respect of its dues which were in that case in respect of the premium and arrears of rent claimed by the Government, the Executing Court, according to the learned Judges, had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of that claim. This case is clearly distinguishable because the dues of the Government were in respect of the premium or rent due to it, about which it cannot be unhesitatingly said that such dues related to the exercise of the sovereign powers of the State because rents and premia could also be realisable even by private landlords. Thus this decision is not of much assistance to the learned counsel.