P. Somarajan, J.

This appeal is against the judgment dated 16.02.2009 in O.S.No.615 of 2008 of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, by the appellant as an aggrieved person. The said suit in O.S.No.615 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for realization of money based on a dishonoured cheque. The present appellant is not a party to the said decree and judgment, but sought to file this appeal as an aggrieved person. The claim of present appellant is that an order of attachment before judgment was passed in that suit over the property belonging to him and that he is a bonafide purchaser for consideration, by virtue of sale deed No.22 of 2008 dated 03.01.2008 of Parassala Sub Registry Office. The sale was effected prior to the institution of the said suit in O.S.No.615 of 2008. Hence, aggrieved by the attachment before judgment, the present appeal was filed as an aggrieved person against the decree and judgment passed in that suit.

2. Since the appellant herein is not a party to the suit or the transaction involved in it, he cannot prefer an appeal as an aggrieved person. The remedy of appellant is to exhaust Rule 58 of Order XXI CPC by filing a claim petition and not by filing an appeal of this nature as an aggrieved person. In fact, the present appellant is not at all an aggrieved person, since the decree and judgment is not binding on him except for the purpose of attachment before judgment made over the property claimed to be owned by him.

3. During the course of arguments, it was fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that they are intending to exhaust the remedy available under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, but entertained a doubt as to whether it is permissible to have an adjudication of a claim petition after the disposal of the suit, and submitted that this appeal was filed as an abundant caution.

4. The scope and impact of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC is precautionary in nature not to defeat the decree by the act of defendant by selling and alienating the property belonging to him. The procedure to be followed in adjudicating the claims over attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC is the procedure under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. It is by virtue of Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC the procedure under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC is extended and made applicable to attachment before judgment for adjudication of claims. This would show that the proceedings for adjudication of claims has nothing to do with the disposal of the suit or the culmination of suit in a decree. It is really, though attached to a suit instituted, a parallel proceeding starting from Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC initially and it proceeds further when there is a claim under Rule 8 of Order XXXVIII CPC. The further proceedings would be under Rule 58 of Order XXI CPC. This would show that it is a parallel proceeding though attached to the suit and a claim petition can be preferred at any stage before it is vacated or till the satisfaction of the decree in execution. So, a claim petition can be preferred at any time till it is vacated or till the satisfaction of decree that may be passed or if any passed in the suit. It is also mandatory for the court to lift the attachment at the time of dismissal of the suit under Rule 9 of Order XXXVIII CPC. So it is permissible to file a claim petition even after the disposal of the suit. So, the legal position can be summarized as follows:

(1) The proceeding under Order XXXVIII CPC is precautionary in nature not to defeat the decree by the act of defendant by selling and alienating the property belonged to him. Though it is attached to a suit instituted, it has nothing to do with the dispute involved in the suit or the decree that may be passed in the suit.

(2) The attachment order under Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII CPC would continue till it is vacated by an order or on dismissal of the suit. Otherwise, it would remain in force till the decree that may be passed in the suit or the