1. Two questions raised in this second appeal are these: (1) Whether a claim preferred under 0.21 R.58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is subject to any period of limitation. (2) Whether the question that the claim was designedly or unnecessarily delayed can be gone into after reception of evidence. The first court found, on facts, that the claim is not barred by limitation. The lower appellate court did not advert to that question, but declined to consider that the claim is designedly or unnecessarily delayed on the premise that the court is not competent to consider it after recording evidence.

2. The appellant is the holder of a money decree against the second respondent who is the judgment-debtor. In execution of a decree, the appellant attached the property, which is in dispute in this case, on 1-9-1976. All steps were completed for bringing the property to sale. Almost four years after the attachment i. e., on 7-8-1980 the first respondent (claimant) filed a petition under 0.21 R.58 of the Code contending that the attached property was gifted by the judgment-debtor to the first respondent as early as 16-3-1972. The decree-holder appellant rais