P. N. SHINGHAL, J.

( 1 ) THERE is a great deal of controversy about the maintainability of these four applications. Common questions of law and fact arise in all of them. They have been argued together, and I shall dispose them of by a single judgment as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) IN order to bring out the controversy in bold relief, I may first state those facts regarding applications Nos. 16 and 17 which are no longer in dispute. The Pareek commercial Bank Limited, respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, was ordered to be wound up on July 31, 1952. Vastu Lal Pareek (respondent No. 2) was the Chairman of the Bank and orders were passed by this Court for the realisation of various sums of money from him. The Official Liquidator applied for execution of the Courts orders and the execution petitions were transferred by this Court to the Court of the District Judge of Bikaner on February 4, 1960. The district Judge attached certain properties on February 13, 1960 in execution of the decree, and claims or objections were filed by the present applicants under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rameshwarlal, Ishwarlal, Ume