The main legal point established in the judgment is the inapplicability of Order 21, Rule 49 to a dissolved partnership and the specific provisions of the rule in relation to continuing partnerships.

Yahya Ali, J.

1. H.W. Maidan who was a partner in Maidan and Co., died in February, 1937. The business was continued by the surviving partner Rao Sahib P. V: Rangiah, who is the petitioner here, in the name of Maidan and Co. Jaldu Venkatasubba Rao obtained a decree in O.S. No. 546 of 1938, District Mun-siffs Court, Masulipatam, against the legal representatives of the aforesaid Maidan, the decree being against the assets of Maidan in their hands. The decree was passed on 9th June, 1939. In execution of the decree the decreeholder applied under Order 21, Rule 46 and Under Order 21, Rule 49 for the attachment of the assets belonging to the deceased Maidan in the partnership. The procedure prescribed in Rule 49 of Order 21 was followed and ultimately after the appointment of a receiver, examination of accounts and the determination of the value of the share in the goodwill of the business that belonged to Maidan, the Court below directed that the surviving partner who was the objector, should deposit in Court the amount claimed in the execution petition in satisfaction of the charge on the profits in his hands created under Order 21, Rule 49. This petition is to revise that order.

2. In the meantime in the course of the proceedings taken under Order 21 Rule 49, orders were passed for the production of accounts and an appeal taken against the said order was rejected in October, 1941, on the ground inter alia that no appeal lay. The appellate Court, however, gave some directions as to the lines on which further enquiry should be conducted in the matter and pursuant to the same, the District Munsiff passed a further order on 5th October, 1943, which was of a preliminary nature directing the receiver to conduct the examination of the accounts for the purpose of answering certain specific questions that were formulated. The receiver submitted a report after giving an opportunity to both sides and ultimately the order which is now sought to be revised was passed by the District Munsiff.

3. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Raghava Rao for the respondents as to the maintainability of the petition. It is urged that a remedy by way of a regular suit was available to the petitioned against the order made by the lower Court under Order 21, rules 46 and 49 and that consequently a revision ought not to be allowed. The contention is that the processes prescribed in rules 46 and 4.9 of Order 21 are different modes of attachment laid down under the Code for different kinds of property, that rules 41 to 57 deal with such different kinds of attachment and that Rule 58 provides for claim being made to properties so attached or objections being taken to the respective kinds of attachment enumerated in the earler rules including rules 46 and 49. He therefore contends that there being a right under Rule 58 for the party aggrieved to put forward a claim or an objection, a right of instituting a suit under Rule 63 of Order 21 is available in the event of the claim being defeated and without exercising those rights it was not open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy by way of revision. This objection does not appear to be sound for various reasons. To start with I am not certain if Order 21, Rule 63 has any application to a case of this description. That rule follows upon Rule 58 and under Rule 58 what is required is that there should have been an attachment of property and on the ground that such property is not available to such attachment a claim is preferred to the property attached or objection is made to the attachment. The underlying fact is that there was an attachment of property in execution of a decree. No doubt, Rule 46 of Order 21 specifically contemplates attachment. But is is difficult to hold on the language of Rule 49 that there is anything in the nature of actual attachment. What the rule actually provides appears to be a process in substitution of the ordinary process of attachment. Under Sub-Rule 2 of that rule th