C.R. No. 2569 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2569 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 20, 2011 Durga Parshad Kedia …..Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kumar and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated January 31, 2011, third party objections filed by the petitioner against the attachment of the property bearing M.C. Unit No. Q.157 has been dismissed. The petitioner-objector claims to be owner of half share in the said property. It has been vehemently contended that the claim has not been adjudicated as such the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. C.R. No. 2569 of 2011 (O&M) [2] I have heard counsel for the petitioner. Without expression of any opinion on merits of the order, it is sufficient to observe that the adjudication of claims and objections against attachment falls under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC though all the questions relating to right, title or interest in the property attached arising between the parties to a proceedings or their representatives are required to be adjudicated and determined by the Court dealing with the objections and the questions raised are to be determined under Order 21 Rule 58 (3) CPC but any order passed under Order 21 Rule 58 (3) CPC is subject to an appeal under Section 96 CPC. In this context, reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gurram Seetharan Reddy Vs. Gunti Yashoda and another, AIR 2005 AP 965 (paras 34 and 35) laying down that the orders passed under Order 21 Rule 58 (3) CPC, Rule 98 and Rule 100 CPC are appealable under Section 96 CPC. Any illegality in the determination of the claim of the objector/ petitioner can be raised before the Appellate Court. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal before District Judge, Bhiwani, within a period of one month. In case the appeal is filed within a period of one month alongwith an application for condonation of delay, the same would be allowed in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. April 20, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE