Soyza vs Wirakoon – clr volume 2 page 178

In the case between the plaintiff (judgment-creditor with a judgment for Rs. 146.50), the District Court execution-creditor, and the defendant (judgment-debtor against whom both the plaintiff and another party, the Government Agent, had claims), the court examined whether the seizure of monies by the Fiscal constituted the “realisation” of an asset under section 352 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court held that “realisation” occurs only when the asset is actually received by the Fiscal, paid into Court, or sold as prescribed by law, and not merely upon seizure. This holding reaffirmed the principle that a judgment-creditor may claim a pro rata share in an asset after, but not before, realisation. The decision drew upon the interpretation of section 352 and related execution provisions,