Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

Entertaining doubt about correctness of view/conclusions arrived at by a Division Bench in Mohammed Hariss v. Fathima (1993(1) KLT 558) as regards the scope of O.38 R.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C.') vis-a-vis 0.21 R.46 thereof in a given factual background, learned Single Judge has made reference to larger Bench.

2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') had filed O.S. No. 713 of 1998 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money from M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant'). On an application, I.A. No. 6424 of 1998, filed by the plaintiff under O.38 R.5 CPC, O.21 R.46 r/w. S.151 CPC there was an order of attachment of Rs. 7 Crores from the Greater Cochin Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the garnishee). Learned Subordinate judge passed an order on 23.12.1998 prohibiting the garnishee from making any payment to the defendant. Notwithstanding this order payment of Rs. 50 lakhs was made by the garnishee to the defendant. LA. No