THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2970 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.81 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, against respondents 1 and 2 herein. He has also filed I.A.No.557 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., with a prayer to attach an item of property, before judgment. Respondents 3 to 6 herein filed I.A.No.692 of 200,7 with a prayer to raise the attachment, pleading that they purchased the property, much before the attachment came into force. That I.A. was allowed on 21- 01-2008. Thereupon the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.1421 of 2008 before this Court. The revision was disposed of, on 25-08-2008, directing that respondents 3 to 6 herein shall not alienate or otherwise encumber the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit, and their further rights would depend upon the outcome of the suit. The suit was decreed on 23-01-2009. Respondents 1 and 2 did not file any appeal. Therefore, the decree has become final. Since the decree was not complied with, the petitioner filed E.P.No.16 of 2009 against respondents 1 and 2, the judgment-debtors, and respondents 3 to 6, who made a claim against the property, that was attached in the suit. Through its docket order dated 03-06-2009, the Executing Court took the view that the E.P. cannot be filed against respondents 3 to 6 herein. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents. The only ground on which the Executing Court refused to register the E.P., against respondents 3 to 6 is that, they are not parties to the suit. Viewed in isolation, this reasoning may appear to be proper and sound. However, if the background of the case, particularly, with reference to the application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., and the various orders passed in that context, is taken into account, the conclusion arrived at by the Executing Court cannot be sustained. It is not as if respondents 3 to 6 are sought to be made as parties to the E.P., for the first time. In a way, it is they, who entered the fray, by filing application to raise the attachment before judgment. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1421 of 2008 discloses that, no final pronouncement was made about the entitlement of the respondents 3 to 6, in respect of the land. It is not in dispute that the property was held by respondents 1 and 2, as on the date of filing of the suit. The order of attachment before judgment was passed on 23-10-2007. However, the attachment was effected on 02-11-2007. In the interregnum, the respondents 3 to 6 purchased the property on 31-10-2007. The implication of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, or other aspects were not dealt with, keeping in view the fact that, if the suit is dismissed, such an adjudication would become futile. It was clearly mentioned that the holding of the property by respondents 3 to 6 would be subject to the outcome of the suit. Now that the suit is decreed, the adjudication into the rights of the parties, vis-à-vis the land, needs to be undertaken. The respondents 3 to 6 can put forward their contentions, as if in a claim petition, under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C. Hence, the revision is allowed, and the order in E.A.Sr.No.839 of 2009 is set aside. The E.P. shall be registered against all the respondents, and it shall be open to the petitioner, on the one hand, and respondents 3 to 6, on the other hand, to put forward their contentions, as regards the availability of that property, for being attached. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-09-2009. KO There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. -07-2009. Note: L.R copy to be marked. (B/O) KO*