For the attachment of the property under Order 21, Rule 54 of CPC, the judgment creditor is required to submit an application as per Rule 13 thereof specifically mentioning therein about the share or interest of the judgment debtor in the property to the best of the belief of the judgment creditor.

Bela M. Trivedi, J.

The present petition filed under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 10.8.07 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the executing court'), in Objection Application No. 47/06, whereby the executing court has allowed the said application and released the property in question belonging to the respondent No.1-objector from the attachment made by the court on 18.4.06 in the Execution Petition No. 12/06 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff-judgment creditor.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed the suit against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3-defendants seeking recovery of Rs. 2,10,000/- in the court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') on 8.9.05. In the said suit an ex-parte decree came to be passed against the said respondents-defendants on 7.1.06. The petitioner-judgment creditor thereafter filed an execution petition before the executing court on 4.4.06 and also prayed for the attachment of the property in question. The executing court vide order dated 18.4.06 attached the said property by passing the following order:-

^^odhy fMdzhnkj miå odhy fMdzhnkj dk 'kiFk i= is'k fd;kA 'kiFk i= esa en;wuku la[;k 2 mlds dCts esa gksuk crk;k gSaA en;wuku ls eryc jkf'k dh olwyh gsrq okå dqdhZ vpy lEifRr mDr lEifRr ds ckcr tkjh gksA okjaV ij ;g uksV fd;k tkos fd mDr lEifRr esa ls dsoy orZeku dher 3 yk[k :i;s rd dk fgLlk gh dqdZ fd;k tkosA ryokuk is'k gksus ij okjUV dqdhZ vfoyEc tkjh gksA i=koyh okLrs rkehy okå dqdhZ fnukad 2-6-2008 dks is'k gksA**

3. The present respondent No.1-the objector thereafter filed the application being No. 47/06 seeking removal of the said attachment stating inter alia that the property in question was purchased by him from the respondent No.3 Smt. Preeti Sharma W/o Shri Jagdeep Sharma by registered sale-deed dated 28.9.05, for which he had already paid the sale consideration by cheque on 7.9.05. The executing court allowed the said application of the respondent No.1 and released the property from attachment vide the impugned order dated 10.8.07.

4. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. G.P. Sharma for the petitioner that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with a view to defeat the decree to be passed in the suit had sold out the said property to the respondent No.1, which could not be said to be a bona fide transaction. He further submitted that as per the provisions contained in Order 21, Rule 58, the objection application of the respondent No.1 was required to be decided by the executing court, as the suit permitting the parties to lead the evidence. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Barnes Investments Ltd. v. Raj. K. Gupta, AIR 2001 SC 2818 and the decision of this court in case of Smt. Poona Devi & Ors. v. Prem Narain Th. Lrs. Smt. Gulab Devi & Ors., 2007(1) WLC(Raj.) 351 in support of his submissions. Pressing into service Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, he submitted that any transfer of immovable property made with the intent to defeat the creditor of the transferor shall be voidable at the option of the creditor so defeated.

5. However, the learned counsel Mr. S.B. Gupta appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the respondent No.1 being the bonafide purchaser for value without notice, the executing court has rightly released the property from attachment. He has also submitted that the property in question was already purchased by him prior to the filing of the suit by making full payment to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by cheque and that the suit being for recovery of money and not in respect of the immoveable property, it could not be said that the transfer was made to defeat the decree that might be passed in the suit.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the executing co