JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is a decree-holder's petition in revision against an order of the learned Munsif of Puri, releasing a sum of Rs. 7000/- from attachment on a petition filed under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC by opposite party No. 1. The facts are these. There was a personal decree obtained against opposite party No. 2, the judgment debtor, and the decree-holder proceeded to execute the said personal decree against opposite party No. 2 who was the marfatdar of opposite party No. 1, the deity. The sum of Rs. 7000/- attached by the decree-holder in Ex. Case No. 55/54 belongs to the claimant opposite party No. 1, which at the time of the attachment was in possession of the judgment-debtor as marfatdar of the claimant. The claimant therefore prayed for the release of the said money from attachment. The contention of the decree-holder was that the money attached, belongs to the judgment-debtor who was in possession of the same at the time of attachment on his own behalf and On behalf of the claimant, opposite party No. 1. 2. The learned Munsif after having considered the case very carefully came to the conclusion that there were extensive properties standing in the name of opposite party No. 1, and similarly opposite party No. 2 has got extensive properties standing in his own name, and the income out of these properties are amalgamated and is kept as the common property of the deity and opposite party No. 2. The money in question was stolen from Math Berhampur Khamar. In the first information report Ex. A, it was stated that the money in question was stolen from the iron chest of Mahant Sidha Kamalnayan Ramanuj Das. Some argument was advanced that the money really belonged to opposite party No. 2 and the claimant had nothing to do with it. The learned Munsif found that the Khamar does not belong to opposite party No, 2 but it belongs to opposite party No. 1, the deity. Some argument was advanced that the money really belonged to opposite party No. 2 and the claimant had nothing to do with it. The learned Munsif found that the Khamar does not belong to opposite party No, 2 but it belongs to opposite party No. 1, the deity. In order to prove that this amount of Rs, 7000/-, belonged to opposite party No. 2, certain account-books were produced, but they have been disbelieved by the learned Munsif who however came to the conclusion that the money attached belongs to the claimant, and the judgment-debtor Jointly and was in possession of the judgment-debtor, partly on his own account and partly on account of the claimant opposite party No. 1. 0rder 21 Rule 60 CPC as amended by Patna High Court and is still being followed by this Court runs as fallows: Where upon the said investigation the Court is satisfied that for the reason stated in the claim or objection such property was not, at the date of the decree, or when attached as the case may be, in the possession of the judgment-debtor or of some person in trust for him, or in the occupancy of a tenant or other person paying rent to him, or that, being in the possession of the judgment-debtor at such time, it was so in his possession, not on his own account or as his own property, but on account of or in trust for some other person or partly in his own account and partly on account of some other person, the Court shall make an order releasing the property, wholly or to such extent as it thinks tit from the execution proceedings or from attachment. X X X X X According to this Rule, if the property is found partly belonging to the judgment-debtor and partly to the claimant then the court shall make an order releasing the property wholly or to such an extent as it thinks fit. In this case there is no evidence as to what part belongs to the judgment-debtor himself in his personal capacity and which part belongs to the deity. Hence it is very difficult in terms of Order 21, Rule 60, CPC to release a part of the property attached. Accordingly, the learned Munsif was right in releasing the entire amount. In the result, this application is dismissed. The Role is discharged with costs. Hence it is very difficult in terms of Order 21, Rule 60, CPC to release a part of the property attached. Accordingly, the learned Munsif was right in releasing the entire amount. In the result, this application is dismissed. The Role is discharged with costs. I assess the hearing fee at Rs. 16/-. Application dismissed. Rule discharged. Final Result : Dismissed