Judgment 1. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended by learned Counsel that the petitioner had purchased a property in a certificate sale on the 11th June, 1956, before the attachment was made by the executing court on the 4th July, 1956, and the said certificate sale was confirmed on the 11th August, 1956. The property was, however, again purchased by the decree-holder on the 25th November 1956. The case of the petitioner is that the executing court ought to have allowed his application under Order 21, Rule 58. Code of Civil Procedure, instead of dismissing it. 2. In support of this argument learned Counsel referred to the Patna amendment of Rules 58 and 59 which are to the following effect: "58. (1) When any claim is preferred to any property, the subject-matter of execution proceedings, or any objection is made to the attachment thereof, on the ground that the applicant has an interest therein which is not bound under the decree, or that such property is not liable to attachment, the court shall proceed to investigate the claim or objection with the like power as regards the examination of the claimant or objector, and in all other respects as if he were a party to the suit: Provided that no such investigation shall be made where the court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. (2) Where the property to which the claim or objection applies has been advertised for sale, the Court ordering the sale may in its discretion make an order postponing the delivery of the property after the sale pending the investigation of the claim or objection. And in no case shall the sale become absolute until the claim or objection has been decided. 59. The claimant or objector must adduce evidence to show that at the date of the decree or of the attachment as the case may be, he had some interest in, or was possessed of, the property in question." It was contended by learned Counsel in support of this application that it was sufficient for the application of Order 21 Rule 58. Code of Civil Procedure, that the petitioner should have some interest in the property in question or was possessed of the property in question. Code of Civil Procedure, that the petitioner should have some interest in the property in question or was possessed of the property in question. It was submitted that it was not necessary for the petitioner to show that he was in possession of the property on the date of the attachment, that is, on the 4th July, 1956. We do not think there is any substance in this argument. The reason is that Order 21, Rules 58 and 59, should be read in the context of rule 60 of the Patna amendment, which is to the following effect: "60. Where upon the said investigation the court is satisfied that for the reasons stated in the claim or objection such property was not, at the date of the decree, or when attached, as the ease 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 on 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 fit, from the execution proceedings, or from attachment. Where the property has been sold, such order shall have the effect of setting aside the sale; and if it has been purchased by a third party in good faith the court may make such order for his compensation by the decree-holder or objector, to an extent not exceeding 12 1/2 per cent, of the purchase price, as he thinks fit." 3. It is clear from the language of Rule 60 that the petitioner must show in order to succeed in this application not only that he had on the date of attachment some interest in the property in question but also that the property was in his possession or of some other person in trust for him or on his account. It is clear from the language of Rule 60 that the petitioner must show in order to succeed in this application not only that he had on the date of attachment some interest in the property in question but also that the property was in his possession or of some other person in trust for him or on his account. In the present case the petitioner has been unable to satisfy on this point the executing court which has recorded a finding that the petitioner was not in possession of the property on the date of the attachment nor was someone else in possession of the property on behalf of the petitioner. It was, however, contended by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that even if the judgment-debtor was in possession of the property it must be deemed in the eye of law to be in trust for the petitioner who had purchased the property in auction sale on the 11th June, 1956, before the date of attachment. No authority was referred to by learned Counsel in support of this proposition which is also not correct in principle. It is not possible in our opinion to treat the judgment-debtor who was in possession of the property on the 4th July, 1956, as a trustee for the petitioner, 4. In our opinion there is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/-.