The amendment to Order XXI, Rules 58 to 61 and 97 to 103 of the C. P. C. was retrospective in operation and applied to all pending proceedings, except those specifically saved under Section 97(2) of the Amendment Act.

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Civil Revision Petitions raise substantially the same question and are, therefore, disposed of together.

( 2 ) I will state the facts in CRP. No. 1719/77 first. A claim-petition filed by the petitioner under Or. XXI, R. 58, C. P. C. has been dismissed by the court below, on the ground that the petitioner has filed to prove the factum of her possession in her own right. The claim-petition was fiied prior to the coming into force of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act No. 104 of 1976. (The provisions with which we are concerned in these Civil Revision petitions come into force on 1-2-1977 ). Tht decision, however, was rendered on 2-5-1977, i. e, after the coming into force of the said Amendment Act. At the hearing of the Civil Revision Petition, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that, in view of the said Amendment Act, the c. R. P. is not maintainable in law.

( 3 ) C. R. P. No. 1792 of 1977 arises from an order dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Or. XXI, C. P. C. This application also was filed belore the coming into force of the Amendment Act, but the order thereon is subsequent to the amendment. The question is, how does the said amendment affect the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition?

( 4 ) BEFORE the said Amendment Act came into force, the scope of enquiry under Rules 58 to 61 or Or. XXI, C. P. C. was limited. If, after making an enquiry, the Court was satisfied that "for the reason stated in the claim or objection such property was not, when attached, in the possession of the judgment-debtor or of some person in trust for him or in the occupancy of a tenant or other person paying rent to him, or that, being in the possession not on his own account or as his own property but on account, or in trust for some other person, or partly on his own account add partly on account of some other person", the Court was to make an order releasing the property wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit, from attachment. IB other words, the scope of enquiry was limited to the ques ion whether the claim- petitioner was in possession in his own right or whether he is in possession on account of, or on behalf of the judgment-debtor. Questions of title were beyond the scope of such enquiry. According to Rule 63, a person aggrieved by an order passed under Rules 58 to 61 was entitled to institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to be property in dispute, and the order in the claim-petition was subject to the decision in any such suit. The amendment Act, however, has substituted by Rule 58 altogether and has omitted Rules 60 to 63. According to the Amended Rule 58, "all ques ions including questions relating to right, title (or interest in the property attached) arising between the parties to a proceeding or their representatives under this rule, and relevant to the adjudication of the claim or objection shall be determined by the Court dealing with the claim or. objection, and-not by a separate suit". Sub-rule (4) further directs that any adjudication under the said Rule shall have the same force and shall be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise, as if it were a decree. The right of suit is preserved only to a very limited extent, viz , where the claim-petition is not entertained, under the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 58. The said proviso directs that no claim-petition or objection-petition shall be entertained where the property attached has been sold before preferring of the claim or objection, and also in cases where the Court considers that the claim or objection is disignedly or unnecessarily delayed. Rule 105 of Or. XXI provides the procedure for hearing of the applications made under Rule 58 as well as under Rules 97 and 99/100. Thus, the enquiry under Rule 58 can no longer be treated as a summary proceeding. All questions, including questions relating to title, have got to be decided finally in these v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document