L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS CRP is filed against the order passed by the learned I Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in CMA No. 38 of 1998, dated 4-5-2001. The C. M. A. , in turn, was filed against the order dated 21-3-1998 passed by the Court of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad, in E. A. No. 103 of 1997 in e. P. No. 93 of 1997.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 933 of 1995 in the Court of I Assistant Judge, city Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the husband of the petitioner for recovery of about Rs. 35,000/ -. The suit was decreed ex parte on 19-8-1996. Since the decree was not complied with, respondent filed E. P. No. 93 of 1997. A Car bearing No. AP 9 C 354 (Maruti) was attached by the executing court. The petitioner filed E. A. No. 103 of 1997 under Rule 58 of Order 21 C. P. C. It was her case that the car was purchased by her, and that the registration also stands in her name. She sought for raising of the attachment. The respondent resisted the application. The executing Court rejected the claim of the petitioner through its order dated 21-3-1998. In C. M. A. No. 38 of 1998, preferred by the petitioner, the order of the executing Court was confirmed.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that the registration of the car stands in the name of the petitioner and the respondent did not place any material before the executing Court to show that the petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle. He contends that the discussion, undertaken by the said Court, be it, as regards the form of application, or finding recorded as to the ownership, cannot be sustained in law.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the claim of the petitioner was vague and not supported by any evidence. He contends that except that the registration was in the name of the petitioner, the actual ownership remained with the judgment-debtor, and that no interference is called for, with the order under revision.

( 5 ) THE husband of the petitioner suffered a decree for money in O. S. No. 933 of 1995. Execution proceedings were initiated against him. It is in this process, that the car belonging to the petitioner was attached. The petitioner filed application under Rule 58 of Order 21 C. P. C. , stating that the car belongs to her and the attachment ought not to have been effected. The executing court rejected the application. Though it undertook a fairly elaborate discussion as regards the form of application, it rejected the E. A. , mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish her claim.

( 6 ) AN application made under Rule 58 of Order 21 is required to be adjudicated as though it is an independent suit. The fact that the same rule bars an independent suit on such claim mandates that the enquiry into an application filed under that rule shall be elaborate and exhaustive. If the application presented by the petitioner was defective, or did not conform to the form prescribed under Rule 246 of Civil Rules of Practice, the executing Court ought, simply, to have returned, or if the situation warranted, rejected it, as is done in respect of a plaint, under Order 7 C. P. C. The executing Court did not choose to either return or reject the application. On the other hand, it has taken the same on file and proceeded to record evidence. Once the evidence is recorded, the executing court was not supposed to examine the form of application. It, however observed in its order, as under:"the Counsel who drafted this petition was framed the same very badly. In the prayer portion it is only mentioned that to return the seized property. On 28-1-1998 the car which was attached was returned to the petitioner as she holding RC Book on her name and the original RC Book is kept with court". After referring to the rule, the Court further observed as under:"as per Rule 246 it is a mandatory to file petition under Order 21, Rule 58 in verified form in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document