The right to institute a suit under Order 21 Rule 63 CPC is a vested right which cannot be taken away by a subsequent amendment in the law unless by express provision or necessary intendment.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the defendant against the order dt. 4-9-1979, whereby the learned trial Judge has rejected his application for dismissing the suit brought by the non-applicant No. 1, Bherulal, under Order 21, Rule 63, C. P. C.

( 2 ) FACTS material for decision of this revision are as under: Plaintiff-nonapplicant No. 1 is owner of the suit house, which was attached on 10-8-1971, in execution of a decree obtained by the defendants against one Hari Durga; the number of the execution proceeding being 255/70-71. The plaintiff submitted objection under Order 21, Rule 58. CPC, which was dismissed on 23-11-1977. Thereafter the plaintiff brought the suit giving rise to this revision under Order 21, Rule 63, CPC on 23-11-1978, for declaration to the effect that since the house in question belongs to the plaintiff, it is neither attachable nor saleable in execution of the aforesaid decree.

( 3 ) IN answer to the suit the defendant-applicant inter alia raised a contention to the effect that in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 58 (4), as amended by the CPC Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant-applicant submitted an application for dismissal of the suit on the ground that in view of the provisions placed in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of Order 21, CPC, the plaintiff ought to have preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order rejecting his objection and cannot maintain the suit. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and has been rejected by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order. Hence this revision.

( 4 ) IN this revision it was contended by Shri R. S. Garg, learned counsel for the revision-applicant that the amendment brought about in the aforesaid rule by Section 72 of the aforesaid Amendment Act, read with its Section 97 (2) (q), the remedy of institution of the suit under Order 21, Rule 63, C. P. C. is not available to the plaintiff; more so, when it is not a case of refusal by the Court to entertain the objection preferred under the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 58 of Order 21, C. P. C. Reliance was placed on the ratio of Chuluram v. Bhagatram (1979 Jab LJ 730) : (AIR 1980 Madh Pra 16), Shesh Kumar v. Kesho (1980 Jab LJ 338) : (AIR 1980 Madh Pra 166) and Sitaram v. Chaturo (1981 Jab LJ 171 ). None appealed on behalf of the respondents to oppose the revision. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants I have come to the conclusion that this revision deserves to be dismissed.

( 5 ) IN this case attachment of the said house was effected on 10-8-1971. Accordingly, the right to object to the attach-ability and/or saleabilily of the property was born with its attachment. This right was exercisable during subsistence of the attachment. Of course, on coming to the conclusion that the claim or objection levelled against attachment was designedly or unnecessarily delayed, it may be open to the Court not to make investigation into the claim or objection preferred.

( 6 ) NOW, the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be regarded as one legal proceeding, as held per majority in Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry (AIR 1957 SC 540 ). The right to file suit or an appeal is just as much of a vested right as any other. Accordingly, right to bring a suit as envisaged by Order 21, Rule 63, of the unamended Civil P. C. has to be regarded as a vested right inhering in the person objecting to the attachability of the property in question from the date when attachment thereof was effected. There is nothing in the provisions placed in Section 97 (which deals with Repeals and Savings) of the aforesaid Amendment Act, on the basis of which such right to institute a suit may be regarded to have been taken away either expressly or by necessary implication. The provisions placed in Section 97 (2) (q) read as under :

"section 97. Repeal and savings.-