Judgment :- 1. This revision is by an attaching creditor of the plaint claim in the suit, whose application under Or. 9, R.9, C.P.C. has been concurrently dismissed by both the courts below. 2. Both the Courts were of the view that the petitioner being a stranger could not maintain the application. The fact that he had attached the rights of the plaintiff in the suit did not according to them give the petitioner any locus standi in the matter. Learned counsel says that S.146 and 0.22, R.10(1) have been overlooked in this connection and he referred to certain decisions. 3. S.146 may no doubt be taken to enable persons claiming under the plaintiff to file the application in question and 0.22, R.10(1) may also be taken to admit into the category of such persons, those who have obtained "assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit" in respect of the subject matter involved there. But the question still is whether the attachment as laid by the petitioner has obtained for him any assignment, creation or devolution of interest within the meaning of 0.22, R.10(1). If any inference could be drawn in the matter from clause (2) to O. 22, R.10 in close juxtaposition, it would appear to be against the petitioner rather than for him. For that clause contemplated a case of interest in the subject matter for purpose of 0.22, R.10 (1) and arising by way of attachment only where the attachment was "of a decree pending an appeal therefrom". That is to say a creditor attaching a decree pending an appeal therefrom can claim to be impleaded in the appeal so as either to oppose or support it. And under the old Code even this was not possible. In fact the real difficulty before learned counsel is that the principle has become inveterate that an attachment of property confers no title, charge, lien or priority in the property in favour of the attaching creditor and merely renders void as against all claims enforceable under it, any private alienation by the debtors of the attached property. 4. In fact the real difficulty before learned counsel is that the principle has become inveterate that an attachment of property confers no title, charge, lien or priority in the property in favour of the attaching creditor and merely renders void as against all claims enforceable under it, any private alienation by the debtors of the attached property. 4. And this is so notwithstanding that high judicial authority regarded the restriction as above on the debtor's power of free disposition as having the effect of creating "a real obligation which is co-relative to a right in rem vested in the attaching creditor", per Raman Menon, C.J. in 9 T.L.J. 256, at 264 or that eminent scholar opinion frowned on expressions in reported cases which detached from the context, "lent support to the notion that an attachment does not operate as a charge on the property". See Ghose on Mortgages, 4th Edn. pp. 138,139 For, the provision in S.91(f) of the Transfer of Property Act enabling the judgment creditor of the mortgagor, who has obtained execution by attachment of the mortgagor's interest in the property also to redeem, which was relied on in the above connection to considerable extent has itself been deleted by the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act 20 of 1929. Mulla's Transfer of Property Act, 4th Edn. P. 523 has the following instructive passage about this amendment. "Clause (f) is omitted as an attaching judgment-creditor has no interest by way of charge or otherwise in the property attached. It is submitted that the obiter dicta in Ananthapadmanabhaswamy v. Official Receiver, (1933) 60 I. A. 167, have not altered the law as to the effect of an attachment. On the other hand, the creditors suggest that this amendment was unnecessary." It may also be added before closing that the decisions cited by learned counsel have no bearing as they were cases of attaching creditors who fell within the scope of 0.22 R.10 (2). 5. The revision has therefore no substance. It is therefore dismissed but without costs because the respondent has not appeared. Dismissed.