T. NARASINGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the decree-holder is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Gudivada, whereby he overruled the two objections raised by the decree-holder with regard to the maintainability of a claim petition and the nature of enquiry to be conducted into the said claim.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner obtained a decree in O. S. No. 110/1969 against the 2nd respondent and in execution of the decree, the immovable properties of the judgment-debtor were attached in the month of February, 1976. 18th july, 1977 was the date notified for sale of the properties. The 1st respondent herein filed a claim petition on the said date objecting to the attachment. He also filed a petition for postponement of the sale, but it was dismissed by the learned District Munsif and the sale was conducted as scheduled. Notice of the claim petition was ordered to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor. The 3rd respondent is the auction-purchaser.

( 3 ) THE decree-holder opposed the claim petition. When the claim petition came up for enquiry and the claimant sought to lead oral evidence, two objections were raised that as per the provisions of Or. 21, Rule 58 of the code of Civil Procedure, as they stood prior to the amendment, the enquiry need be a summary one and that an elaborate enquiry is not permissible. The other ground was, that in view of the sale, the claim petition under Or. 21, rule 58, C. P. C. , can no more be investigated. He sought a decision on these two objections. As regards the maintainability, he held that as the claim petition was filed subsequent to the enforcement of the amended Civil Procedure code, the provisions of Or. 21, Rule 58, C. P. C. as amended would apply and that all questions have to be determined by the Court in the claim itself and not by a separate suit and therefore the enquiry need not be a summary one. On the second contention, he held that though a claim petition was filed before the sale actually took place and though postponement of the sale was refused, yet the claim petition can be investigated into after the sale, this he held in the absence of any direct ruling of this Court.

( 4 ) AS the outset, it can be said that the first question does not present any difficulty. The view of the learned Distr. Munsif as to the nature of enquiry not being a summary one cannot be supported. Under Or. 21 Rule 58 (2) as amended by Act 104 of 1976, which came into force with effect from 1-2-1977, all questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property attached) arising between the parties to a proceeding 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. Thus, the amended Code had deleted Or. 21, Rule 63, C. P. C. , which provided that any order made in a claim petition under Or. 21, Rule 58, C. P. C. , is subject to a suit to be brought by the aggrieved party. Thus, by its very nature, the scope of enquiry as contemplated by Or. 21, Rule 58, C. P. C. before amendment was a summary one. The question is, whether the provisions of Or. 21 Rule 58 C. P. C. as they stood prior to this amendment would apply to the present proceedings.

( 5 ) THE claim petition has come to be preferred on 18-7-1977. But it is not in dispute that the attachment of the properties in question was made as early as in February, 1976. Or. 21, Rule 58, C. P. C. stands amended by Section 72 of the Amendment Act of 1976. Section 97 (1) of the Amendment Act of 1976 relating to Repeals and Savings reads as follows :-"the provisions of Rules 31, 32, 48 (a), 57 to 59, 90 and 97. to 103 of or 21 of the First Schedule as amended or as the case may be substituted or inserted by Section 72 of this Act, shall not apply or effect.- (i) Any attachment subsisting immediately before the commencement of the said Section 72. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 6 ) THUS, with regard to a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document