In Vootla Viriah v. Tadepalli Subba Rao1 following the observations of Spencer and Venkatasubba Rao, JJ., in Dhanammal v. Veeraraghava Naidu2 Horwill, J. and myself have laid down that the word “interest” in Order 21, rule 89 has got a very wide import and should be construed very liberally. Any inchoate right which a party may have over a property may be sufficient interest to enable him to apply under Order 21, rule 89. Mr. Achuthan Nambiar contended that attachment of property does not confer any interest on the attaching creditor, except that if the property is alienated by the act of parties, such alienation will have no precedence over the attachment. He invites my attention to the observations in Krishnaswami Mudaliar v. Official Assignee, Madras1, where it is observed that an order of attachment merely restrains a debtor’s debtor from paying to the debtor the money attached and restrains the debtor from receiving the same. In Narayana v. Pappayi2, there is an observation that it has frequently been held that more attachment of property does not create any interest in the property and therefore it follows that the expression “affected by the sale” should not be con