JUDGMENT

Thomas, CJ - This is a decree-holder's second execution appeal against the order of the learned Civil Judge of Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, dated 4th September 1940, setting aside the order of the Munsif, South Lucknow, dated 27th January 1940. Mr. Lincoln, the decree-holder, obtained a decree against Mrs. Callow, proprietress of Claudette, on 27th July 1987, for a sum of Rs. 1550 payable in monthly instalments of Rs. 300 each. Various sums were paid by the judgment-debtor, but it appears that on 13th January 1939, a sum of Rupees 954-4-0 still remained due to the decree-holder who attached some moveable property of the judgment-debtor to the value of about Rupees 1196. While the attachment was still subsisting, the decree-holder on 6th February 1939, applied for the 'attachment of certain money due to Mrs. Callow from the Adjutant of the Auxiliary Force, India, (which will hereafter be called as A.F.I.) This money was attached and a notice was sent to the Adjutant as garnishee.

2. On 15th February 1939, the Court was informed that no money was payable to Mrs. "Callow. On 16th March 1939, a fresh notice was served on the Adjutant to deposit the money in Court under Order 21, Rule 105, Civil P.C. On 17th March, the Adjutant informed the Court that he had paid the money to Noor Elahi, proprietor of Messrs. Haji Mahbub Bakhsh Ehsan Elahi of Cawnpore, the objector in this case under instructions from Mrs. Callow under her letter dated 7th February 1939, Ex. 14. A third notice was sent to the Adjutant and he wrote on 1st May 1939, saying that he had withheld a sum of Rs. 954-4-0 sought to be attached. The Court directed him to deposit the said amount in Court which he did. The decree-holder then got a notice issued to Noor Elahi who appeared in Court on 27th May 1939, and filed certain objections under Order 21, Rule 107, Civil P.C., alleging that on 7th February 1939, he had purchased a bill of Rs. 2700 due to Mrs. Callow from the Lucknow A.F.I. on account of catering etc., charges in lieu of Rs. 2500 and that he had obtained a deed of assignment from her. On 15th July 1939, the decree-holder filed his reply denying all the allegations and pleading collusion and fraud. The learned Munsif dismissed the objections holding that the deed of assignment was not a genuine document and ordered the payment of the money to the decree-holder. The objector then appealed and the learned Civil Judge of Mohanlalganj Lucknow, allowed the appeal holding that the assignment was not collusive and fraudulent but was valid. It is against this order of the learned Civil Judge that the present appeal has been filed. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel on behalf of the objector, Noor Elahi, that no second appeal lies and reliance is placed on a Bench decision of this Court reported in Lachman Prasad v. Mohammad Yunus, A.I.R. 1936 Oudh 167 in which it was held that against an order of a civil Court, proceeding under Order 21, Rule 107, an appeal is allowed under Order 21, Rule 112, Civil P.C., but no right of second appeal is allowed under the Code and the finding of the lower Appellate Court in such case cannot be challenged in second appeal. On the other hand, Mr. Jackson on behalf of the decree-holder contends that a second appeal does lie and he relies on a Single Judge decision of this Court reported in Lincoln v. R.W. Anderson, A.I.R. 1939 Oudh 86 I am of opinion that the preliminary objection is well founded. The procedure against a garnishee is contained in Order 21, Br. 104 to 112. Rules 104 and 105 of the said order have no application. Rule 106 applies to cases where the granishee disputes his liability. According to Mr. Jackson this rule applies to the present case, while Mr. Haider Husain contends that it does not as the garnishee did not dispute his liability. According to Mr. Haider Hussain the rule applicable to this case is Rule 107 which lays down that:

Whenever in any proceedings under these rules it is all