DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed under Section 115 CPC, against the order dated 16. 7. 2001 in LA. No. 466 of 1999 in la. No. 412 of 1999 in O. S. No. 45 of 1999 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at khammam.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff in the suit is the revision petitioner. It filed a suit in O. S. No. 45 of 1999 on the file of Senior Civil judge at Khammam for recovery of amount said to be payable to it by the first respondent. It filed a petition in LA. No. 412 of 1999 under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, seeking attachment before judgment of a vehicle bearing No. TN 72 - 6566 on the ground that the said vehicle belonged to the second respondent herein. After the said vehicle was attached before judgment, it appears that even before a decree is passed by the Trial Court in the suit, the vehicle was sold in public auction and sale proceeds are lying in Court Deposit. The first respondent herein filed a petition in LA. No. 466 of 1999 under Order 38 Rule 8 read with section 151 CPC, claiming that under hire- purchase agreement, it became the owner of the attached vehicle even before the attachment and requested the Trial Court to deliver possession of the vehicle attached by the Court. The claim application was contested by the revision petitioner. It claimed that the vehicle belonged to the second respondent herein and the first respondent is not the owner of the said vehicle. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court. On a consideration of evidence adduced by both the parties, the Trial Court held that the first respondent herein is the owner of the attached Bus. Inasmuch as the attached Bus was already sold, the Trial court held that the first respondent herein is entitled to withdraw the sale proceeds deposited in the Court. Aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred the present revision petition.

( 3 ) IN my considered opinion it is not necessary to consider and decide in the present revision petition whether the first respondent is the owner or the second respondent is the owner of the attached Bus. In my considered opinion this revision petition cannot be entertained and disposed of by this Court. Order 38 Rule 7 CPC, deals with mode of making attachment. It lays down that the attachment shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of the property in execution of a decree. Rule 8 of Order 38 CPC, deals with adjudication of the claim to property attached before judgment. It clearly lays down that where any claim is preferred to property attached before judgment, such claim shall be adjudicated upon in the planner provided for the attachment of claims to property attached in execution of a decree for the payment of money. In view of the above provisions, it is necessary to refer to the provisions in Order 21 CPC, relating to adjudication of claims to or objections to attachment of property. The provision in order 21 Rule 58 CPC, deals with such adjudication of claims. For the purpose of disposal of this revision petition, the provision in Order 21 Rule 58 (4) CPC, is the relevant and important provision. It reads as follows:"where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. "a reading of this important provision makes it clear that any order passed by the Court in an inquiry into a claim petition shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. In view of this specific provision, the remedy of any person aggrieved by any order passed by any Court in a petition adjudicating claims to or objections to attachment of property is to prefer an appeal over the said order. In the present case, the revision petitioner did not prefer any appeal over the impugned order. He filed the present revision petition under Section 115 CP

Click Here to Read the rest of this document