RAMIAH Vs. COWDIAH AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In execution of a money decree obtained against respondent 2, by respondent 1 an immoveable property was attached and ordered to be sold on 22-3-1956 and five days before that date the petitioner presented a claim petition under the provisions or Order XXI rule 58 C. P. C.objecting to the attachment. In that application he asked for a postponement of the sale on which the Court below does not however appear to have made any order. The property appears to have been sold and purchased by the decree-holder for the amount due to him under the decree. On 28-9-1956 the Court below dismissed the claim petition on the ground that an investigation of the claim was not competent after the sale of the attached property. This revision petition is directed against that order,

(2.) Sri Dayananda learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the view taken by the Court below that the sale of the attached property deprived the Court of its Jurisdiction to investigate the claim was unsupportable. He urged that in this case the petitioner had preferred his claim before the sab actually took place and since the court did not, under the proviso to rule 58 of Order XXI C. P. C., consider that the claim was designedly or unnecessarily delayed, it was bound to investigate it. He further contended that the decision in Abdul Razack v. Jainullabudin, 55 Mys HCR 42 (A), on which the lower Court depended was a case in which the claim petition was presented after the attached property had actually been sold and so had no application to the present case.

(3.) Sri Rama Rao learned Advocate for the decree-holder has argued that an attachment does not survive the sale of the attached property and that the moment the property is sold, the attachment ceases. He, therefore, submitted that an investigation of a claim after the cessation of the attachment in that way would be purposeless and therefore incompetent.