Judgment :- RAMACHANDRA IYER J. These revision petitions arise form the orders of the sub;ordinate Judge of Madurai in E.A. Nos. 890 and 915 of 1956 rejection tow petitions filed under Order XXI, rule 58, of the civil Procedure Code to raise the attachment before judgment ;effected on the property in suit and in the petitions In O.S., No. 76 of 1949 in the file of Sub-Court, Madurai the Madura Mercantile Bank ltd., obtained a decree for the large sum of money against one Rajagopala Iyer Immediately after the filing of the sit the bank obtained an order for attachment before judgment of certain propertied belonging to the debtor. subsequently the bank was faced with financial difficulties. In O.P. No. 126 of 1953 the bank was directed to be wound up by an order of this court dated July 22, 1953 The official liquidator who thereafter took charge of the asset of the bank filed E.P. No.71 of 1956 in Sib-Court, Madurai, for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 76 of 1949. the petitioners claiming that they had acquired title to the property attached in a court sale in execution of a mortgage decree obtained Rajagopal iyer filed applications in the executing court for raising attachment on the ground that they were entitled to possession of the propertied in their own right. The claims were resisted by the official liquidator of the bank inter alia on the ground that the petitions filed under order XXI rule 58, of the Civil Procedure Code could not be entertained by the executing court by reason of section 45B of the Banking companies Act (X of 1949).as only; the High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain all claims ;against a bank in liquidation. That objection found favour with the learned Subordinate Judge. The claimants challenge the correctness of the view taken by the lower court in these petitionsthe question raised depend on a proper construction of section 45B of the Banking Companies Act which runs as follows "The High Court shall ... have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide any claim made by or against a banking company which is being wound up .. have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide any claim made by or against a banking company which is being wound up .. or any application made under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of `1956) by or in respect of a banking company or any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or arise in the course of the winding up of a banking company, whether such claim or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made before or after the date of the order for the winding up of the banking company or before or after the commencement of the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1953." * The section provides that the High Court should have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide any; claim made by or against the banking company. It is contended for the petitioners that a claim made to the property attached in execution to the decree in favour of the banking company which is under liquidation cannot be held to be one against the banking company as its assets have not in any way been affected thereby The argument is that the bank being merely an attaching decree holder would have no interest in the property attached and therefore a claim made in respect of the property would not be not by or against the banking company. In Shenoy v. Raghunatha Shenoy one of us has consider the question whether section 45B of the Banking Companies Act would give jurisdiction to the court in control of liquidation proceedings over matters other than those effecting the realization and disposal of the assets held by the bank. The question was answered in the negative. But a claim to ap property attached in execution of the decree obtained by the bank cannot be said to belong to that category cases. It would, on the contrary be claim a arising in the course of winding up of the company affection as it would do the realisation of assets held by the bankIt was next contended that a claim petition filed under Order XX rule 58, of the Code of Civil procedure would not amount to a legal proceeding and that therefore the provisions of section 45B would not apply to the case. Reliance was placed for the position of the observations of Raghava Rao J. in palghat Wariar Bank Ltd. v. Padmanabhan, where the learned judge, whole considering whether leave of the court under section 171 of the India Companies Act was necessary ;for the filing of a claim petition against an attachment effected in execution of a decree in factor of the bank in liquidation, held that such; a petition not being a legal proceeding would not require pervious permission of the company court. Section 171 of the Companies At provides that no legal proceedings shall commence against a company except by leave of court and that too subject to such; conditions as the court may deem fit to impose, Section 45B of the Banking Companies Act is couched in wider terms that section 171 of the Companies Act. In Dhirendra Chandra pal v. Associate Bank of Tripura, it was held that section 45B was ;not confined to claims ;for recovery of money or property alone but would comprise all ;sorts of claims which relate to or arise in the course of the winding up. In Shri Ram Narain v. Simla Banking & Industrial Co the Supreme Court adverted to the wide terms of section 45B of the Banking Companies Act and held that proceedings taken to execute a decree obtained by a creditor of the bank and all incidental matters arising therefrom like attachment, etc. would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court in charge of the winding up of the banking company. It therefore, becomes necessary to consider that nature of the claim proceedings. whether it can be said to amount to a proceeding taken by or against the bank, or whether it is one merely by way or defense to or incidental to a proceedings taken by the bank. In Hemanga Coomar Mookherjee v. Chakravarthi the Calcutta High Court held that c claim made under order XXI, rule 58, of the Code of Civil procedure by a liquidator a banking company was one arising in the course of winding up of the company. In that case a decree was passed and execution was levied by a creditor of the bank in the court of Alipur. The company came forward with a claim to the properties that were attached in the case. In that case a decree was passed and execution was levied by a creditor of the bank in the court of Alipur. The company came forward with a claim to the properties that were attached in the case. A day after the ;claim petition wa filed, proceedings for the winding up of the company aware taken and a winding up order followed. The liquidator duly impleaded himself as a party to the claim as petition filed at the instance of the bank. The executing court held that the claim petition could be entertained only be the High Court and therefore transferred it to the High court. It was held that the execution court had no power to transfer the claim petition. There is nothing. however, in that decision which ;would support the contention of the respondents that objection to an attachment ;effected at the instance of a banking company could not be entertained by the court which effected the attachment but could be son done only be the High Court. The contention of the respondent, if accepted. would lead to the anomaly that whole the attachment is make by one court, where such court is not the High Court, the claim petition has to be decided only be the High CourtWhile it may be conceded that the claim petition is one that arises in the course of the winding up of the company it cannot be held ;that it is a petition filed on the initiative of the claimant. the claimant is obliged to file a petition only else the decree- holder has attached his property. It is not disputed that if there is an objection to the attachment directed by the execution court it will be open to the judgment debtor to raise his objections to the attachment in that court itself. A claim petition is only in substance an objection to the attachment at the instance of third party. there is no reason why there should be a difference between a case of a judgment-debtor objection to the attachment and a case of third party doing so. ;Order XXI, rule 58, of the Code of civil Procedure in terms confers jurisdiction only on the executing court. The object of the provision is to have a summary and speedy disposal of objection to the execution. the claim petition itself would be entertainable only when there is an attachment subsisting. ;Order XXI, rule 58, of the Code of civil Procedure in terms confers jurisdiction only on the executing court. The object of the provision is to have a summary and speedy disposal of objection to the execution. the claim petition itself would be entertainable only when there is an attachment subsisting. A decision given on a claim petition is on a summary nature concerning the question of possession alone. That decision is subject to the result of a suit under Order XXI of the Code procedure. Statutory finality of the decision under Order XXI rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure it self apples only to claims under the decree in execution of which an attachment was effected and would not apply to matters arising in execution of other decrees against the same judgment-debtor. Vide Narasimhachari v. Raghava. It would be apparent form the nature of the claim petition that in essence it is only a defense to proceeding already taken by the decree-holder. It is one made during the subsistence of the attachment. Where the company is able to execute the decree in a subordinate court either by obtaining transfer to the decree form the High Court of otherwise it should on principal be held that the claim petition should be entertainable by that courtIn our opinion, the true position is as it has been state by Raghava Rao J. in Palghat Wariar Bank Ltd. v. Padmanabhan where the learned judge held that claim proceedings were merely incidental to the main execution proceedings and if execution proceedings were entertained by a court other than the company court the claim proceedings should also be capable of being interned that court. Where, however, the claim petition has been disposed of and a suit has been filed under order XXI, rule 63, of the Code of Civil Procedure different considerations will arise. Such a case would not be by way of defence or one merely incidental to proceeding already started by or against the banking company but would be an independent one. Section 45B will apply to the case : it was so held by one of us in Application No. 435of 1958 in O.P.No. 192 of 1947. We are, therefore, of opinion, that the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be sustained The civil revision petitions succeed and are allowed. Section 45B will apply to the case : it was so held by one of us in Application No. 435of 1958 in O.P.No. 192 of 1947. We are, therefore, of opinion, that the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be sustained The civil revision petitions succeed and are allowed. The execution petitions will be remanded to the lower court and the claim petitions will be disposed of in accordance with law. No. order as to casts Order accordingly.