This revision arises out of an Execution Petition No.52 of 1952 in O.S.No.187 of 1942 on the file of the District Munsiff’s Court, Valangiman. The petitioner was the garnishee and the execution petition was filed by the plaintiff for attachment by issue of a prohibitory order in respect of a sum of Rs.3000 out of Rs.45,000 in the hands of the four garnishees of whom the petitioner was the first garnishee under Order 21, rule 46, Civil Procedure Code. The 1st defendant-judgment-debtor died and in his place his legal representatives were impleaded as defendants 6, 7, and 8 and the prohibitory order asked for seeks to restrain the garnishees from paying the sum of Rs.3000 in their hands to defendants 6 to 8 and directing them to deposit the amount into Court, and there is a prayer for appointing the plaintiff as a receiver for realisation of the amount. Three objections were raised to the execution. One of the objections raised apart from denying the debt was that there are other heirs of the 1st defendant by his Malayan wife who are not impleaded in the Execution Petition, in effect that the amount even if payable is payable not only to defendants 6, 7 and 8 but also to others who are not parties to the execution. The learned District Munsif held that in view of the denial by the garnishee of any liability to the judgment-debtor the only course was to have a receiver appointed for the collection of the debt and accordingly appointed the plaintiff as receiver for collection of the debt and also made absolute the interim order of attachment.

An appeal was preferred against that order by the first garnishee which came up before the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam before whom a preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the appeal. It was also urged that the attachment which was made absolute by the learned District Munsiff was illegal and not valid. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the contention about the invalidity of the attachment but took the view that no appeal lay against the order and dismissed the appeal. The view taken by the learned Subordinate judge about the invalidity of the attachment is however correct, since under Order 21, rule 46, Civil Procedure Code, an attachment can be made of a debt due to the judgment-debtor alone and not a debt due to a judgment-debtor and another (vide Hajee Abdulla v. Abdul Lathiff1, and Siluvaimuthu Mudaliar v. Muhammad Sahul and others2) . But notwithstanding the order of the learned District Munsiff making the attachment absolute being invalid, the appointment of the plaintiff as receiver cannot, however, be challenged as it is the only course open to the Court in a case where the garnishee denies his liability under a debt alleged to be due to the judgment-debtor. This will be sufficient to dispose of the revision petition and the order of the learned District Munsiff can be upheld in so far as the appointment of a receiver is concerned. But the question as to the maintainability of the appeal has been elaborately argued before me and it therefore becomes necessary to express an opinion as to the correctness of the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge about the non-maintainability of the appeal before him.

The execution petition is presented under Order 21, rule 11, Civil Procedure Code and the reliefs asked for are: (1) attachment by issue of a prohibitory order under Order 21, rule 46, Civil Procedure Code and for directing the garnishee to deposit the amount and (2) in default, for appointment of a receiver. Order 21, rule 11 describes the mode of preferring an application for execution and the particulars which if the execution petition is in writing should be given. Being a written application under Order 21, rule 11(2), the application shall state among others the mode in which the assistance of the Court is required, and in stating the particular mode in which the assistance of the Court is required in the present case attachment is asked fo