An alienation of immovable property made after attachment shall be void against all claims enforceable under the attachment to safeguard the interest of the creditor.

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur, affirming the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under O. 21, 58 of the Civil P. C. ('code' for short ).

( 2 ) THE land in dispute in this case is 1. 02 acres of land out of Khata No. 32 of village Nagaon which was attached under O. 38, R. 5 of the Code by order of the learned Subordinate Judge dt. 4-3-1974. The attachment was effected by the Process Server on 5-3-1974 as is evident from his report (Ext. A-1 ). Despite the attachment, the petitioner purchased the said land from opposite party No. 2 by a registered sale deed dt. 22-3-1974 for a cash consideration of Rs. 3,000/ -. The petitioner in Execution Case No. 51 of 1976 filed a petition under O. 21, R. 58 of the Code for release of the disputed land.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel appearing for both parties, I find that the case is completely covered by an identical case reported in (1986) 62 Cut LT 373, Sashi Bag v. Dibya Shankar Padhan. In that case also the disputed land was attached before judgement and was subsequently sold by the same party. On interpretation of S. 64 of the Code it was held on plain construction thereof that an alienation of immoveable property made after attachment shall be void against all claims enforceable under the attachment to the same extent as an alienation made after the attachment under a decree. Provisions of S. 64 are meant to safeguard the interest of the creditor. As against the attaching creditor a private sale would not be effective, but if the order of attachment is withdrawn or the claim of the creditor is otherwise satisfied the sale deed executed would convey good title to the transferee.

( 4 ) APPLYING the aforesaid principle to the facts of the case it will appear that after attachment of the disputed land before judgement, the same was transferred in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the transfer is ineffective and void as against the interest of the petitioner. This being the position, the learned courts below were justified in rejecting the petition under O. 21, R. 58 of the Code which was not maintainable.

( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the civil revision which is dismissed. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/ -. Petition dismissed.

.