Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This application has been filed by the decree-holder and it is directed against an order passed by the Execution Munsif, dated the 19th of December, 1960, by which an application filed by the opposite party under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and a house has been released from attachment. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this application are as follows: On the 23rd of August, 1950, a sale deed was executed by Mosstt. Sahidan and others in favour of the opposite party named Sitaram Mahton. This sale deed was, however, registered on the 2nd of September, 1950. In the meantime, on the 29th of August, 1950, Money Suit No. 372 of 1950 was instituted by the petitioner against Mosstt. Sahidan. The house in question, which is said to have been sold to the opposite party, was attached on the 1st of September, 1950. That is to say, the house in question was attached one day prior to the day on which the sale deed was registered. In due course, the Money-Suit was decreed and execution was levied by the decree-holder. Thereafter, an application was filed by the opposite party under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the attached property be released from attachment, as he had purchased the property by the sale deed dated the 23rd of August, 1950. The decree-holder opposed this application substantially on the allegation that the alleged purchase was a farzi transaction. It may be mentioned at this stage, that according to the opposite party, he was in possession by virtue of the sale deed, whereas according to the decree-holder, the opposite party was not in possession. It appears that at the time of hearing of the application filed by the opposite party, the question of farzi raised by the, decree-holder was abandoned, and it was contended that as the attachment of the house had taken place on the 1st of September, 1950, and the sale deed was registered on the 2nd of September, 1950, the opposite party had no interest in or possession over the house at the time of the attachment. 3. 3. The learned Execution Munsif has held, on the materials on record, that, even if the judgment-debtor was in possession of the house on the date of attachment, she was holding the property on trust for the purchaser, and, therefore, it was a fit case in which the attachment should be lifted and the property released. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Munsif has erroneously held that if the Judgment-debtor was in possession on the 1st of Sept 1950, she was in possession on trust for the purchaser. According to learned counsel, if the judgment-debtor was in possession on the 1st of September, 1950, and it is not proved that she was in possession on trust, this application under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code should have failed. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Ramdeo Kabra V/s. Fakiran Devi, AIR 1960 Pat 425 . As against the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that the application filed by his client cannot be dismissed on an assumption that the judgment-debtor was in possession on the 1st of September, 1950, and that the document of sale, dated the 23rd of August, 1950, stated that the purchaser had been put in possession, and according to the case of the opposite party also, he was in possession. It is urged on behalf of the opposite party that this i9 not a case in which interference is called for, when under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decree-holder can agitate all the points in controversy in a more appropriate form. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that the application under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the opposite party cannot be dismissed by this Court at this stage, without coming to the relevant conclusions required under tha provisions of Order 21, Rules 58 to 61 of the Code. But in the civil revisional application filed in this Court, it is not possible to come to the appropriate conclusions, necessary for disallowing a claim, as envisaged by Rule 61 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But in the civil revisional application filed in this Court, it is not possible to come to the appropriate conclusions, necessary for disallowing a claim, as envisaged by Rule 61 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the petitioner can succeed at all, this case will have to be remanded to the Court below for coming to the appropriate findings necessary for rejecting the claim under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code. The contention raised by the petitioner as to the farzi nature of the sale in favour of the opposite party having been abandoned in the Court below, it will have to be ascertained by the learned Munsif as to whether possession had been given to the purchaser, after execution of the sale deed on the 23rd of August, 1950, and before the attachment effected on the 1st of September, 1950, or not. In my opinion, when such controversial issues have to be re-agitated, it will be more appropriate to hold that the aggrieved party should, if he so likes, agitate the questions raised in an appropriate forum under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon the question of possession, the decision in Ramdeo Kabras case, AIR 1960 Pat 425 , relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, may be distinguished inasmuch as, on the facts of that decision, possession would not have followed before "the certificate of sale was confirmed, whereas, in the instant case, possession may have been given to the purchaser upon the execution of the sale deed itself. If this case is remanded to the Court below for reagitating the points raised in this Court, opportunity may have to be given to the parties to lead fresh evidence regarding possession of the house subsequent to the 23rd of August, 1950, as sufficient attention was not focussed on this point. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to entertain this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. For the reasons given above, this application should fail, and it is, therefore, dismissed; but under the circumstances, there will be no order for costs. S.N.P.Singh, J. 6 I agree.