CR No.7746 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7746 of 2010 . Decided on: April 05, 2011. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. .. Petitioner VERSUS Kesar Kaur and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Manish Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner Punjab State Power Corporation Limited has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 05.04.2010, passed by the executing Court allowing the application under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC, for recovery of ` 4,67,762/-, dismissing the objections filed by . . . 1 CR No.7746 of 2010 the petitioner against the order of warrant of attachment of the property. The short question which arises for determination is whether the impugned order is appealable? It is observed at the threshold that the objections filed by the petitioner against the execution is to the effect that in execution, the property of the petitioner is not liable to be attached as the decree has been satisfied. It is not clear from the application whether the objections against attachment, was specified under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, regarding adjudication of claims or the objections to attachment of property or it was an objection under Section 47 CPC, which requires that all questions arising between the parties to a suit in which decree was passed, regarding execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the executing Court and not by a separate suit. Since the attachment of the property has been challenged for the grounds mentioned in the objections, it will not be appropriate to ignore the provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, which require an executing Court to adjudicate upon the claims and the objections regarding attachment of property. An order passed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, has been given the status of a decree for the purpose of appeal as per the sub-rule 4 of Rule 58 of Order 21 CPC. The nature of order passed under Order 21 Rule 58 (4) CPC and order passed under Order 21 Rules 98 & 100 CPC, came up for consideration before the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case Gurram Seetharam Reddy Vs. Gunti Yashoda and another, 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 490, wherein it was held that against an order . . . 2 CR No.7746 of 2010 passed under Order 21 Rules 58 (3), 98 & 100, regular appeal under Section 96 CPC would lie. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as follows: - “34. Further, if for any reason, the expression "an appeal expressly allowed by Rules" occurring in Clause (i) Section 104(1) can be taken as including Rule 58 of Order 21 in its fold, the fact that Rule 58(4) directs that the order passed under sub-rule (3) shall have the same force of a decree, for the purpose of appeal cannot be ignored. On account of it, the order passed under Rule 58 of Order 21 stands physically lifted from the purview of Section 104 C.P.C. While right to file a suit is a common law remedy, right of appeal is one, which has to be specifically provided for by a statute. The procedure to be followed in filing the appeal as well as the forum to which it shall be presented, are to be specifically provided. This requirement becomes significant in the context of different kinds of remedies provided in the form of appeals and revisions, in the enactments like C.P.C. Each remedy has its own significance as well as limitations. The Legislature is deemed to have taken the relevant factor into account, when it provides for a particular kind of remedy against the outcome of an adjudication. By the process of interpretation, such remedies can neither be restricted nor expanded. 35. When Section 96 C.P.C. specifically provides for appeals against decrees, and sub-rule . . . 3 CR No.7746 of 2010 (4) of Rule 58 of Order 21 directs that the order passed under sub-rule (3) thereof shall have the force of a decree, there hardly exists any basis to deny such characteristics to such an order. An interpretation to the contrary would have the effect of setting at naught, the intention of the Parliament in attributing characteristics of a decree to an order. In view of a clear mandate under sub-rule (4) of Rule 58, an order passed under sub-rule (3) thereof, partakes a character of a decree for all practical purposes, more so, in the context of availing the remedy of appeal. Same reasoning holds good for the orders passed under Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 C.P.C. Hence, there does not exist any justification to treat the same as different, in any way from decrees, at least in the context of deciding the forum and provision for appeal. The question as to what nomenclature is to be given to the appeals, needs to be dealt with by the High Court or the District Courts, on administrative side. Hence, we are of the view that the judgment of this Court in Nookaraju's case (supra) does not lay the correct proposition of law. Once it is held that orders passed under Rule 58(3) and Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 C.P.C., are appealable under Section 96 C.P.C., it is axiomatic that a second appeal is maintainable against the order passed in such appeals. Though this question is not referred to this Full Bench, it is dealt with, to put an end to the controversy and uncertainty.” In view of the above said Full Bench judgment, I am of the considered opinion that an appeal would lie before the District . . . 4 CR No.7746 of 2010 Judge against the order of attachment. It is not out of place to observe here that under Order 21 Rule 55 CPC, an attachment has to be removed after the satisfaction of decree. Thus, it will be for the appellate Court to determine whether decree stands satisfied and whether the attachment deserves to be removed. All pleas taken up in this revision petition can be taken up by the petitioner while filing the appeal. Giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, this revision petition is dismissed. In case, the appeal is filed within a period of one month from today, the petitioner will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The sale of the property attached will remain stayed for a period of one month from today. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 05, 2011. rka . . . 5