1. Non-compliance with the first part of Order 21, Rule 46(2) of the CPC, requiring the prohibitory order to be affixed on a conspicuous part of the court house, does not render the attachment invalid, as it is a curable defect under Section 99 of the CPC. 2. A bank is not entitled to insist on a Succession Certificate before paying a debt to a decree-holder, where the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors are all heirs of the deceased judgment-debtor and are parties to the suit and the decree under execution.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This appeal by the garnished arises out of a garnishee proceeding in which the objection of the appellant has been rejected.

2. In order to appreciate the points raised in the appeal It is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts material for the decision of the present appeal :

3. The decree-holder-respondent, who is the widow of one Nadir Ali, obtained a decree on account of her dower debt against the heirs of her deceased husband Nadir Ali in a money suit brought by her against them. This decree was put into execution, and, the decretal amount was sought to be realised from the assets of Nadir Ali in the hands of his heirs.

4. Nadir Ali had a Fixed Deposit Account with the Imperial Bank of India at Gaya, to the tune of Rs. 6,090.00 in his name. During the pendency of the money suit brought by the decree-holder, in which the decree under execution was passed, the plaintiff-decree-holder respondent on 17-11-1949, made an application under Order 38, Rule 5 and Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and prayed for issue of an attachment before judgment. On that application the trial Judge passed the following order :

"Issue notice to defendants to show cases why the attachment before judgment sought should not be allowed. This should be done after plaintiff files requisites by 24-11-1949. Meanwhile a copy of this order and petition may be forwarded to the Agent of the Imperial Bank of India, at Gaya requesting him not to make payment of this money to any party till further orders."

On receipt of this prohibitory order the Imperial Bank of India, the appellant, sent a reply on 25-11-1949, to the following effect:

"With reference to your Attachment Order dated 17-11-1949, we beg to advise that we do not appear to maintain any current account in the name of the late Nadir Ali.

The late Nadir AH maintained a Fixed Deposit Account with us the proceeds of which amounting to Rs. 6,090.00 are held by us in suspense and we have noted not to pay this amount to any one without the production of Succession Certificate and unless this Prohibitory Order has been withdrawn by the Court."

This reply of the appellant was acknowledged by the trial Judge and ordered to be kept on the record by his order No. 16, dated 30-11-1949. No cause having been shown by the defendant, attachment before judgment was issued on 11-1-1950. The order passed by the trial Judge on the said date is in the following terms :

"Notice to show cause why attachment before judgment be not issued served on all the defendants. Cause not shown. Plaintiffs pleader urges that attachment before judgment be issued in respect of Rs. 6,000.00 which is lying in fixed deposit in the Imperial Bank of Gaya in the name of the husband of the plaintiff and Rs. 2,000.00 as ijara money under a registered ijara deed executed by Mosst. Mahmooda in favour of the plaintiffs husband. Requisites for issue of attachment before judgment filed. Let attachment before judgment be new issued as prayed for returnable by 25-1-1950."

The attachment issued in pursuance of the above order of the Court was served and it was so recorded in the order sheet of the Court below under order No. 22 dated 20-2-1950.

5 When ultimately a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff-decree-holder respondent and when it was put into execution a notice under Order 21, Rule 63A was issued to the appellant. In response to the notice issued to the appellant under Order 21, Rule 63A of the Civil Procedure Code, the Bank-appellant filed an objection before the executing Court on 29-8-1951. The principal objection of the appellant was, as mentioned in paragraph 2, Clause (i) of the objection, that unless Letters of Administration of Succession Certificate are produced the Bank would not get an effective discharge in respect of "the debts" due by the Bank to Nadir Ali, deceased. There was also an objection regarding attachment. The learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 4-12-1952,