NARAYANAMMA Vs. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this revision petition is whether a claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the attachment, which was in subsistence, is maintainable with in the meaning of Sec.97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976.

(2.) The facts that give rise to this revision petition are that on the basis of the two promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the late G. Raja Naidu, husband of Venkataramaratnamma, the petitioner herein filed a suit after the death of the promissor impleading the widow and the sons of the said late G. Raju Naidu as respondents being the legal representatives of the late G. Raju Naidu, and the couit passed a decree in that suit authorising the petitioner to recover the amounts from the assets of the late G. Raju Naldu in the hands of the respondents if any. Later on the petitioner filed E P. No. 438 of 1960 in OS. No. 65 of 1958 and got the properties mentioned in ths schedule attached. Thereupon the respondents i.e., the wife and children of the said Raju Naidu filed a claim petition in E. A. No. 1190 of 1960 in E.P. No, 438 of 1960 for raising the attachment over the petition schedule property. The lower Court held that the attachment of the petition schedule property effected on 19-9-1960 has to be raised because that property belonged to the 1st petitioner in the E. A. No. but not the late Raju Naidu. Aggrieved against the said order this revision is preferred.

(3.) Sri C. Poornaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, raised a preliminary objection stating whether a revision or civil miscellaneous appeal is maintainable against an order made on a claim petition filed under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This he submitted because of the conflicting decisions of this Court in this behalf.