1. The Union Bank of India is the revision petitioner.

2. Fasts relevant and requisite to dispose of the issue arising for consideration lie in a narrow compass. The first respondent is the decree-holder and respondents 2 and 3 are the judgment-debtors in O.S.522/81. The first respondent had obtained an attachment before judgment of the lorry belonging to the judgment-debtors. The attachment however, was raised on one E. V. John, the brother of the judgment-debtors, giving a fixed deposit receipt for a sum of Rs.6,500/- issued by the petitioner-bank as security to the court. In execution of the decree the court, treating the bank as a garnishee, called upon the bank to deposit the amount and interest thereon, covered by the fixed deposit, in court. This order directing the bank to deposit the amount, it is submitted on behalf of the decree-holder, was passed after rejecting the bank's contention that the bank has alien' over the amount in fixed deposit. Since this order was passed without considering the above contention of the bank, according to the bank, the bank filed E. A.781/87 seeking review of the order. In this petition the bank has stated that the bank has the r