( 1 ) THE present appeal by special leave arises out of an execution proceeding and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated January 21 1970 in Letters Patent Appeal setting aside the order of the Single Judge in second appeal. The appeal came up for hearing on September 24 1981 After the conclusion of the arguments of the counsel for the parties we allowed the appeal with costs set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the District Judge for reasons to be recorded later in the following terms : This appeal is allowed with costs of this Court and the decree passed by the District Judge is restored. Reasons will follow later on. We now proceed to give the reasons.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT 1 Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar (since dead and represented by his legal representatives) filed a regular suit No. 215 of 1959 for the recovery of his dues from Kamla Pictures Kolhapur of which Bapusaheb Narayanrao Mohite (since dead and represented by his heirs and legal representatives) was the sole proprietor. It appears that after filing the suit the plaintiff applied for attachment of the defendants properties before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the following properties were attached : (A) Picture negative and sound negative of censored movie Anant Fandi. (B) Rush prints of the above movie. (C) Positive prints of the above movie. (D) Raw positive films. (E) Publicity part-posters litho posters photos enlargements photo-negatives bookset blocks etc. The actual possession of the defendants aforesaid properties was with Pandurang Jivajirao Apte (for short Apte) the appellant at the time of attachment.

( 3 ) THE suit was eventually decreed for a sum of Rs. 9000 and odd with interest and costs of the suit. The said attachment was continued by the decree.

( 4 ) THE decree-holder sought to execute the decree by the sale of the property attached. As stated earlier the property was in possession of Apte the appellant. The decree-holder therefore prayed that Apte should be called upon to produce the property in Court and the same should be sold.

( 5 ) NOTICE was issued to Apte the garnishee who appeared and filed a written statement. He took up the plea that property had already been pledged with him by the judgmentdebtor for his debt and that the attachment levied at the instance of the decree-holder was subject to his encumbrance on the property. He also alleged that he had raised this contention in the suit itself at the time of attachment before judgment 30d he was allowed by the Court to sell the property pledged with him. Accordingly he exercised his right under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act and sold the property to one Madhusudan Vasudeo Bavdekar (Bavdekar for short) after due notice to the judgment-debtor as also after a public notice. But the proceeds of the same were not sufficient even to satisfy his own debt. Under the circumstances he was not in a position to produce the property in Court.

( 6 ) IN view of the stand taken by the appellant Apte the decree-holder filed an application for impleading Bavdekar the purchaser as a party to the execution proceedings. The application for impleadment was allowed and Bavdekar was impleaded as judgment-debtor No. 2. No amendment claiming any relief against him was however actually incorporated in the application for execution. Bavdekar in his turn also Sled a written statement alleging that the property was pledged with Apte who had sold it to him. He was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and the purchase being effected in pursuance of the consent decree passed in Bombay City Civil Court in suit No. 1047 of 1959 transfer in his favour was valid in law. He was therefore not liable in any way for the claim of the decree-holder.

( 7 ) THE executing court came to the conclusion that the attachment before judgment of the property in ispute was invalid and that the property being pledged by the jud