JUDGMENT

Agha Haidar, J. - This is an application in revision against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Third Class, Lahore, ordering the attachment of half the salary of the judgment-debtor Grant in the hands of the Secretary of State for India. Grant was adjudicated insolvent on 29th October 1926 at Agra. At the time of his adjudication Grant was drawing a salary of Rs. 250 per mensem in the Telegraph Office. After his adjudication Grant incurred fresh debts and on the basis of those debts Ishar Das of Lahore obtained a decree against him for Rs. 682-7-0 with costs on 14th April 1931. On 8th May 1931 Ishar Das made an application to the Subordinate Judge, Lahore, for attachment of Grant's salary and a warrant of attachment was issued on 11th May 1931, ordering the attachment of half the salary which Grant was drawing. This warrant was in the ordinary course received by the Chief Superintendent, Telegraphs, Agra, who raised the objection that Grant's salary was not attachable. He forwarded the warrant to the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Agra, in whose Court the insolvency proceedings against Grant were pending. The Small Cause Court Judge, Agra, wrote back to the Chief Superintendent, Telegraphs, that since Grant was an undischarged insolvent his salary could not be attached by the Subordinate Judge, Lahore, in view of the provisions of Section 28, Provincial Insolvency Act. On 26th June 1931 the Chief Superintendent, Telegraphs, sent a copy of the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Agra, to the Subordinate Judge, third Class, Lahore, who issued a notice to the Secretary of State (in this case the Collector, Agra) under Order 21, Rule 48, Civil P.C. The Government Pleader appeared before the Subordinate Judge and pleaded that the Secretary of State was not liable under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 48, Civil P.C. The Subordinate Judge by his order, dated 6th March 1935, held that Grant's salary was attachable and the Secretary of State was liable for the amount under Order 21, Rule 48. It is against this order that the present application for revision has been filed by the Secretary of State.

2. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi on behalf of the respondent-decree-holder, that the order of the Court below was an order under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., and that no revision lies against it. He further argued that it may be treated as an order under Order 21, Rule 63-A (Lahore) and the appeal consequently lay to the District Judge, and as the applicant did not seek this statutory remedy he cannot attain his object by coming to this Court in revision. He further developed his argument by pointing out that the Secretary of State had appeared before the Subordinate Judge through the Government Pleader and raised the objection that Grant's salary was not attachable. This procedure comes within the purview of Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C, and, unless it is challenged by means of a regular suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P. C, the order of the executing Court is conclusive, and it would be highly inconvenient and contrary to the spirit of the enactment to try to get round it through the channel of a revision. This objection, in my opinion, is well founded and the application for revision must fail on this ground. Furthermore, the order passed by the Court, under Order 21, Rule 48, Civil P. C, was an order passed in execution of the decree under Section 47, Civil P.C., and as such was subject to an appeal: vide Charles S. Brown v. Albert Donough Hanson 1933 Bom 185. The applicant, therefore, could challenge the order of the Court below by filing a regular appeal to the District Judge. This he did not do and, in my opinion, a revision is barred on this ground also.

3. There is another aspect of looking at the matter. The adjudication of Grant as insolvent was annulled by an order dated 26th October 1932 and he retired from service on 18th July 1933. It has been stated by the counsel for the opposit