An attaching creditor does not possess any interest in the subject matter of attachment that would entitle him to the grant of leave to prefer an appeal against a decree obtained by a third party in a different suit against his judgment debtor declaring the sale in favor of the judgment debtor of the subject matter of attachment as invalid.

( 1 ) THE point that arises for determination in this case is whether an attaching creditor is entitled for the grant of leave to prefer an appeal against a decree obtained by a third party in a different suit against the judgment debtor declaring the sale in favour the Judgment-debtor of the subject-matter of the attachment as invalid.

( 2 ) THIS petition is filed requesting this court to permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal (CCCA) against the Judgment and decree in O. S. 15/67 passed in favour of the 1st respondent and against respondents 2 to 12 on 31-12-1973.

( 3 ) THE facts necessary for disposal of the matter may now briefly be stated. The petitioner Narsingrao Chavhan filed felt against 8th respondent seeking the recovery of an amount of Rs. 51,000/- and odd and obtained a decree from the court of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad. The Yakut Mahal Talkies belonging to the 8th respondent who is the defendant in the said suit O. S 32/67 and against whom the decree was passed, was attached before Judgment. Subsequent to the passing of the decree E. P. 73/71 was filed and the same was pending. The attachment was effected on 31-3-1967.

( 4 ) THE 1st respondent filed a suit O. S No. 15/67 on the file of the addl Chief Judge (Temporary) Hyderabad against respondents 2 to 12 seeking among other things for cancellation of the sale dated 20-7-1954 of the Yakutmahal Talkies in favour of 8th respondent. The said sale of the talkies was with the permission of the High Court in C. M. P. No. 3076/64 in A. S. No. 185/59. In view of this permission according to the petitioner the said sale cannot be held to be vitiated and consequently the same cannot be cancelled

( 5 ) THE Suit instituted by the 1st respondent against respondents 2 to 12 was decreed and the defendants in that suit preferred appeals which are pending. But according to the petitioner he suspects that there is collusion between them and the appeals may he likely to be closed at any time. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit, the petitioner stated thus:"that he will suffer an irreparable loss due to cancellation of the said sale of the Yakut Mahal Talkies as the 8th respondent who is judgment - debtor in E. P. No. 73/71 has no other properties. Hence it is necessary to challenge the judgment in OS 15/67 under appeal and requests permission may be given for filing the appeal. 5 That there is no legal impediment in granting permission and interest of justice also requires the granting of such permission. Hence it may be granted. "

( 6 ) A counter was filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that the suit instituted by the 1st respondent was for partition of the matruka Property of her late father Nawab Jaffar Nawaz Jung. One of the contentions raised therein is that the sale deed executed by her late father in favour of the respondent No 8 in regard to Yakut Mahal Talkies was invalid and that the court was pleased to decree her suit declaring the said sale as invalid with the result that the Yakut Mahal Talkies was also inclu ed in the Matruka Property of her late father. The suit instituted by the 1st respondent is earlier one to the one instituted by the petitioner and as such according to this respondent Yakut Mahal talkies already formed the lis of the previous litigation and therefore the attachment orders passed in the petitioner s suit do not have any effect.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to the 1st respondent, the petitioner and the 8th respondent are colluding with a view to harass hei and 8th respondent is the owner of many other properties such as Prakash Talkies at Manghalhat, hyderabad and another Lakshmi Talkies at Kuzgi in Mahaboobnagar district. He is also possessed of considerable property. He examined himself as one of the witnesses in O. S. No. 15/67 where he has stated on oath that be gets a net income of Rs. 10,000/- per year after meeting all expenses. He is admittedly an income-tax assessee and due to the Inco