Priority of Crown debts governs recovery of court-fee liabilities, placing the Government ahead of the decree-holder in execution proceeds.

The Government was entitled to recover court-fee directed to be paid by specified defendants, and that liability was treated as a matter arising between parties to the suit under Section 47. Once the amount became recoverable from those defendants, the Government stood in the position of a decree-holder in respect of a decree debt, so the doctrine of priority of Crown debts applied and ranked ahead of the decree-holder in execution sale proceeds. Section 73 was treated as preserving that priority, and the Code was read as not displacing it absent clear statutory exclusion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Government was entitled to claim priority for recovery of court-fee directed to be paid by certain defendants, so as to rank ahead of the decree-holder in the execution sale proceeds.

Analysis: The direction to pay court-fee under the relevant provisions of Order 33 created liability in the hands of the specified defendants, and Rule 13 treated disputes arising from such direction as questions arising between parties to the suit under Section 47. Once the amount became recoverable from those defendants, the Government stood in the position of a decree-holder in respect of a decree debt. The doctrine of priority of Crown debts applied to such decree debts, and nothing in the Code displaced that priority. Section 73 preserved the Government's right and did not confine its priority to cases of a first charge. The suggested waiver or restriction of that priority was not accepted.

Conclusion: The Government's claim had priority over the decree-holder's claim, and the revision petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Government is entitled to recover a decretal amount from specific judgment-debtors, the doctrine of priority of Crown debts applies unless the statute clearly excludes it, and the Government's right is preserved by the Code.

---