Y. V. ANJANEYULU, J.

( 1 ) A short but interesting question of law arises in this appeal regarding the effect of amendment of O. 21 R. 58, CPC by the amending Act No. 104 of 1976 with effect from 1-2-1977. The Ist respondent herein, Omprakash Gupta, filed a suit bearing O. S. No. 843 of 1976 against the 2nd respondent herein Shankarlal, in the court of the IVth Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- and odd. In that suit, an application, I. A. No. 1 of 1976 was filed by the Ist respondent for attachment before judgment of the moveable in the premises No. 2-3 belonging to the appellant herein on the ground that the movables in the said premises belong to the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the above application, attachment was effected on 3-1-1977. The appellant then filed a claim petition No. I. A. No. 13 of 1977 under O. 38, R. 8 CPC for release of the property from attachment on the ground that the movables belonged to her and did not belong to the 2nd respondent. After appropriate enquiry, the court dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant by its order dt. 4-3-77. Thereafter the appellant filed a suit bearing O. S. No. 32 of 1977 seeking to set aside the order passed by the IVth Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad declining to release the property from attachment. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the defendants in the above said suit bearing O. SA. No. 32 of 1977. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents-defendants that the suit filed by the appellant under O. 21. R. 63 CPC was not maintainable in view of the Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 of the Civil P. C. which came into force on 1-2-1977. It was urged that, according to the Amending Act, an Appeal is provided against the rejection of the claim petition and the procedure, prior to the amendment of filing a suit under O. 21, R. 63 CPC was given up. In that view it was contended that the present suit filed by the appellant under O. 21 R. 63 CPC as it stood prior to the amendment, which came into force on 1-2-1977 was not maintainable and the suit should be dismissed in limine. The trial court considered this objection as a preliminary issue and upheld the contention of the respondents-defendants that the suit was not maintainable. Against the above said judgment of the trial court, an appeal was filed by the appellant herein. The Addl. District Judge, Rangareddy District, upheld the order of the trial court by his judgment dt. 21-3-1983 in A. S. No. 57 of 1982. The judgment of the first appellate court is challenged in this second appeal.

( 2 ) SRI M. L. Ganu learned counsel appearing for the appellant, referred to the following crucial dates, which will have a bearing on the determination of the question under consideration in this appeal. 1. Attachment was made in I. A. No. 1821 of 1976 in O. S. No. 843/76 on 3-1-1977 2. Claim petition under O. 21, R. 58 CPC was filed on 17-1-1977 3. Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 came into force on 1-2-1977 4. Claim petition rejected by the court on 4-3-1977 5. O. S. No. 32/77 was filed under O. 21 R. 63 CPC on 28-3-1977. Sri Ganu urged that from the above particulars, it is clear that the attachment in the present case was made on 3-1-1977 and the claim Petition under O. 21, R. 58 CPC was filed on 17-1-1977. Both these dates were before 1-2-1977 when the Amending Act came into force. Shri Ganu invites attention to S. 97 (2) (q) of Amending Act which is in the following terms :"2 (Q ). The provisions of Rr. 31,32. 48-A, 57 to 59, 90 and 97 to 103 of O. XXI of the First Schedule as amended or, as the case may be, substituted or inserted by S. 72 of this Act shall not apply to or affect:- (i) any attachment subsisting immediately before the commencement of the said S. 72 or (ii) any suit instituted before such commencement under R. 63 aforesaid to establish right to attached property or under R. 103 aforesaid to establish possession, or (iii) any proceeding to set aside the sale of any imm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document