1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-The brief and relevant facts of the case are that a three decrees were passed against late Wali Muhammad, the predecessor-- in-interest of respondents 4 (i) to 4(xiii), in favour of respondents 1, 2 and 3. In the decree passed in favour of the petitioner, which was for Rs. 1.12.916- 15, it was mentioned that the Rehabilitation Department owed to late Wali Muhammad Rs.
2. 91,638.94, and when the same was deposited in the Executing Court it was to be distributed amongst the three respondents/ decree holders in equal proportion. The record would show that the said three decrees passed against Wali Muhammad were put in execution, and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha consolidated all the three cases, and -when the Rehabilitation Department deposited in the Executing Court Rs. 80,424.94, which it claimed was the only amount due to late Wali Muhammad, the learned Judge ordered the rateable distribution of the same amongst all the decree-holders. In implementation of the said order, Rs. 60,005.94 came to the share of the petitioner. But of this the respondents felt aggrieved and consequently went to the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. A learned Judge of the High Court accepted the said revision application and consequently set aside the order of the learned Executing Court by his judgment, dated 22-9-1972.
3. Being aggrieved of the judgment of the High Court, the petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal in this Court, which was allowed, vide order dated 2-10-1973, on the ground that section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was interpreted and construed by the High Court, required authoritative exposition. By the same order, however, the stay application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.