1. In execution of a decree for money the first respondent-decreeholder attached a property on 20-10-1982. The appellant, who is a stranger preferred a claim under 0.21, R.58, Civil Procedure Code, objecting to the attachment. In the claim it was stated that she knew about the attachment only on 28-10-1983 when she came to the property covered by the attachment. The learned judge noted that the attachment was made in the presence of the manager of the lodge (which was the subject of attachment) and other persons and it was not possible to believe that she did not get information about it from the manager. Holding that the claim was designedly and unnecessarily delayed the learned judge dismissed it. The petitioner has brought this appeal challenging the order.

2. Counsel for the 3rd respondent raised a preliminary objection contending that as the claim was dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the order without investigation the appeal was incompetent under R.58 of 0.21, whatever other remedy might be open to the appellant. This necessitates a consideration of the relevant provisions of 0.21 R.58 as amended by Act 104 of 1976. Sub-rule (1) provides that when a claim is