K.M. Joseph, J.

1. On the allegation that respondents 2 to 4 entered into an hypothecation agreement for purchase of a vehicle, under which the second respondent is the borrower and respondents 3 and 4 are the guarantors, and alleging that an amount of Rs.4,40,921/= is due and further alleging the existence of an arbitration agreement, the appellant moved the District Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming attachment of the properties of the respondent therein. The Court ordered attachment on 11.11.2008. The attachment was effected, however, only on 29.11.2008. The first respondent thereupon filed a petition styled under Order 21 Rule 58 of the CPC and Section 9 of the Act, praying that the attachment was effected only on 29.11.2008 and she had purchased the property on 22.11.2008 by way of registered Sale Deed and she prayed that the attachment may be lifted. The learned District Judge found that before effecting attachment, the property had been sold. The court below relied on the Pass Book and the evidence of PW2, who is the brother of the first respondent who was examined as PW1 to find that