The conclusiveness of an order under Order 21, rule 58 Civil Procedure Code is conditional on the continuance of the execution proceedings and the attachment ensuing therefrom.

( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of R. F. A. 28-D of 1965 and Civil Revision No. 111-D of 1964, both filed by one Bharat Singh.

( 2 ) R. F. A. 28-D of 1965 is directed against the judgment and decree of a Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dismissiag the appellant s suit only on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

( 3 ) THIS suit was filed by the appellant against five defendants for a declaration that shops Nos. 32,45 and 46 situate at Narela mandi in the Union Territory of Delhi belonged to him and his brother Kirpa Ram (defendant No. 5) and that the sale of the said three shops in execution of a decree dated March 18, 1950 passed by the court of Shri Parshotam Sarup, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, was null and void and did not confer any rights on defendants 3 and 4, the auction-purchasers.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the appellant he, Kirpa Ram, (defendent No- 5) and Maha Chand are the sons of one Ram Narain. Mst. Bhagirathi (defendant No. 2) is the widow of the said Maha Chand. The appellant and Kirpa Ram constituted a joint Hindu family after the death of their father Ram Narain and Mst. Bhagirathi lived with them but was not a member of the coparcenery. It was alleged that on March 18, 1950 Mst. Bhagirathi got a collusive decree for Rs. 5900 passed in favour of firm M/s. Sheo Pershad Giani Ram (defendent No 1 ), the decree being against M/s. Jai Ram Dass Ram Narain, the joint Hindu family firm of the appellant and Kirpa Ram. On July 18, 1951 the appellant and other members of his aforesaid joint Hindu family firm filed a suit in the court of Shri S. D. Tyagi, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi. (Suit No. 733 of 1951) for a declaration that the said decree dated March 18, 1950 was a nullity and was not executable against the appellant and the property of the joint family of Jai Ram Dass Ram Narain and for a permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from proceeding with the execution of the said decree and getting the coparcenery property of the appellant sold in execution of the said decree. One of the properties mentioned in the said suit as being coparcenery property were shops Nos. 37, 45 and 46 situate at Narela. This suit was decreed by the trial Court on April 9, 1960 and the decision was confirmed by the judgment and decree of the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi dated August 19, 1961. The appellant claims that he and his younger brother Kirpa Ram as owners have been in possesson of the aforesaid three shops for more than 25 years and have consistently been denying the ownership of the aforesaid auction purchasers, defendants 3 and 4, though the property was sold in auction. It may be mentioned here that the auction sale of the said three shops in execution of the decree for Rs. 5900 took place on July 17, 1962. Originally, the said three shops had been got attached by defendant No. 1 and objections filed by the appellant under Order 21, rule 58 Civil Procedure Code. were dismissed on August 19, 1950. No suit under Order 21, rule 63 Civil Procedure Code. was filed by the appellant at that stage. The execution applicion in which the attachment had been made was, however, dismissed on January 10, 1953. Thereafter, a second execution application was moved by defendant No. 1 and on January 29, 1956 the said three shops were once again attached. As noticed earlier, the auction sale took place on July 17, 1962. The appellant then filed objections to the sale and attachment of the aforesaid three shops under Order 21. rule 58, Section 47, Section 151 and Order 21, rules 90 and 100 Civil Procedure Code. These objections were filed on August 13, 1962 and were dismissed on December 1, 1962. The present suit was filed a few days later.

( 5 ) THE suit was resisted by defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2, defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4. Kirpa Ram, defendant No. 5 supported the suit. According to the contesting defendants the suit was misconceived and time-barred. They denied any collusion between Mst. Bhagirathi and defendant No. 1