KULDEEP SINGH Vs. PARTAP SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the stage of execution of a decree for money, a purchaser from the judgment debtor who incidentally happened to be the brother, caused an objection to be given for attachment, claiming the property belonged to him. The sale was after the institution of suit but the contention was since the suit was only for money, adjudication regarding property was not involved and, therefore, the property dealt with by the judgment debtor during the pendency of suit could not have been proceeded against. The objection was accepted and the court released the property from attachment. It is against this order that the revision has been filed.

(2.) A third party objector making a claim to the property does so through an application under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The said provision makes possible for raising of attachment if the claim by a third party is substantiated. An order passed in such an application shall be in the nature of a decree under Order 21 Rule 58 (4) CPC and hence, appealable. I must observe no such application has been filed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC.

(3.) The third party objection is also competent as an obstruction caused for delivery and an adjudication sought in the manner contemplated under Order 21 Rules 97 to 99 CPC. Such a proceeding will be in the nature of a civil proceeding under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC and the order will take effect as if it were a decree under Rule 103 and consequently, a provision for an appeal would be possible. Here again, it had not come to the stage of delivery and an adjudication could not be seen to be an adjudication under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC.