IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2009 SMT. APARNA AJITKUMAR RAIKAR ... Appellant Versus SHRI. ANILKUMAR RAMNATH RAIKAR AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate with Ms. F. Mesquitta, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 15th July, 2009 P.C. The Respondent is a Decree Holder, who attached a shop for execution of his money decree. The attachment was opposed by husband of present appellant by pointing out that atleast two years prior to attachment, he has purchased the property from the original Judgment-Debtor. He moved an application for intervention raising this objection and executing Court rejected that application with a finding that there was collusion and fraud between Judgment Debtor and said intervenor/husband of present appellant. The present appellant thereafter filed her objection under Order 21 Rule 58, raising same issue and Decree Holder pointed out that in view of provisions of Section 11 C.P.C., the objection could not be inquired into. The Courts below have concurrently upheld this objection of Decree Holder. 2. Advocate Nigel Da Costa for appellant-wife has contended that under the law of Communion of Assets, the appellant-wife is 50% owner of the property purchased and, in fact, as per her objection, she contributed half of the said consideration. He also wanted to rely upon some Judgments to show that the application raising such objection could not have been summarily rejected and evidence ought to have been recorded. 3. Advocate Lavande, on the other hand, states that respondent-Decree Holder is trying hard to recover the money due and original Judgment Debtor Anilkumar Raikar and his wife transferred the attached property to his relative Ajit Kumar Raikar. The said Ajit Kumar Raikar then raised objection which came to be dismissed and that dismissal attained finality. After said finality was attained and property was put to auction, wife of Ajit Kumar raised objection same as that of her husband. He, therefore, contends that bar of Section 11 has been rightly invoked and applied. During hearing, he stated before this Court that property has already been auctioned but further process has been stayed because of interim orders passed in this Second Appeal. 4. Considering the facts above, I find that provisions of Section 11 of C.P.C. have rightly been invoked in the present matter. The various cases on which learned Counsel for appellant wanted to rely upon to contend that an inquiry ought to have been held, are not relevant because of this bar under Section 11, and hence, I have not permitted learned Counsel to cite those Judgments. 5. No substantial question of law, therefore, arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 6. Advocate Nigel Da Costs states that the impugned Order should be stayed for a period of four weeks to enable the appellants to take further appropriate steps in the matter. However, learned Advocate Shri Lawande opposes said request. Considering the fact that interim Order was operating till today, the request made by Advocate Da Costa is granted and said interim Order is extended till 24.08.2009. The interim Order shall stand to operate automatically thereafter if there are no further interim Orders passed by any competent Court of law. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. arp/*