Judgment N.L.Untwalia, J. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances, referred to in the order under revision, this is a typical case where the dictum of the Privy Council that the difficulties of a decree-holder or, for the matter of that, the auction purchaser, are too numerous after passing of the decree, is demonstrated. 2. Opposite party No. 9 had obtained a money decree against opposite party No. 3 in the year 1955. In execution of that decree certain property was sold and purchased by the petitioner. There were objections in several miscellaneous cases. He eventually, according to his case, succeeded in obtaining delivery of possession, but, somehow, subsequently lost it. In the year 1959 he filed Title suit No. 130 of 1959, for possession over the property which he had purchased in execution of the money decree aforesaid. The suit was decreed. There was an appeal by the defendants of that suit but the appeal was dismissed. The decree was put into execution for obtaining delivery of possession. Opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 then filed a case under order 21, rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code, hereinafter to be called the Code, on 4-2-64, claiming a portion of the property to be theirs and in their possession. According to them, they were not parties to the decree passed in Title suit No. 130 of 1959 and hence their interests were not bound by it. The petitioner resisted the claim case on several grounds. After having rejected all his objections, the court below has allowed the claim case holding that the interest of the claimants in the property in question was not bound under the decree and that they were in possession of that portion of the property through their agent. The petitioner, therefore has come in revision to this court. 3. Mr. Janardan Sinha, appearing in support of the rule, submitted that since the petitioner had purchased the property in court auction held in execution of the money decree obtained by opposite party No. 9 against opposite party No. 3, the claimants had no right to resist the delivery of possession or to institute a miscellaneous case for adjudication of their right, title and interest in the property. Their remedy is to apply under Order 21, Rule 100 of the Code after dispossession. Their remedy is to apply under Order 21, Rule 100 of the Code after dispossession. Learned counsel further submitted that on merits also the learned Munsif has committed an illegality in exercise of his jurisdiction inasmuch as he has wrongly held that the claimants had a subsisting title or interest in the property or that they were in possession of it on the date of sale or on the date of the decree passed in Title suit No. 130 of 1959. 4. In my opinion, the first point is not tenable and the second submission is not such as to induce me to take the view that the learned Munsif has committed any error of jurisdiction in arriving at the impugned decision. 5. It is to be noticed in this case that the petitioner is not obtaining delivery of possession at the moment in the present proceeding, under Order 21, Rule 95 of the Code after the event of sale which took place in the execution of the money decree. Had that been the position probably the contention put forward on his behalf could be acceptable. But the petitioner has obtained the decree for possession in his Title suit No. 130 of 1959 and in execution of this decree he wants to obtain delivery of possession over the disputed property. That being so, in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code, as amended by the Patna High Court, the application under the said provisions of law, is maintainable. The general Rule 58 of Order 21 speaks about the preferring of claim or the making of an objection to the attachment of a property attached execution of a decree. But, the rule, as it stands after the Patna amendment, envisages two contingencies under which a claim case under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code can be filed and entertained. It says that when any claim is preferred to any property, the subject-matter of the execution proceeding ........ "on the ground that the applicant has an interest therein which is not bound under the decree, the court shall proceed to investigate the claim" and this is over and above the general rule. Under the Patna amendment any objection can also be made to the attachment of the subject matter of the execution proceeding on the ground that such property is not liable to attachment. Under the Patna amendment any objection can also be made to the attachment of the subject matter of the execution proceeding on the ground that such property is not liable to attachment. Under the first portion of the rule, therefore, as it stands under the Patna amendment, the subject matter of the execution proceeding in the present case is the property over which the petitioner, by virtue of his decree, made in Title suit No. 130 of 1959, wants possession. The claimants said that they had an interest in a portion of the property which was not bound under the decree. Obviously, if they had an interest in the property it could not be bound under the decree because they were not parties to that decree. Rule 59, as it stands, under the Patna amendment, also brings out the same result. To quote the relevant words in connection with the point at issue--"the claimant must adduce evidence to show that at the date of the decree he had some interest in or was in possession of the property in question", i. e., the objection under the Patna amendment is not confined to the interest and possession of the applicant on the date of the attachment, but it speaks about the date of decree also and that would mean the decree for possession. Of course, as Rule 60 stands, even under the Patna amendment, such a claimant will have to show not only his interest in the property or a portion thereof, which is the subject matter of the execution proceeding, but he will have to establish his possession also on the date of the decree. In my opinion, therefore, the view taken by the learned Munsif, on a consideration of the relevant rules, as they stand amended by the Patna High Court, is correct and must be upheld. He has rightly come to the conclusion that the claim case filed by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 is maintainable. 6. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, I have come to the conclusion that I shall not be justified in taking a view in this case that the order of the learned Munsif suffers from an infirmity of the kind which would attract the provisions of and justify the interference by this court under Sec.115 of the Code. The finding recorded by the learned Munsif right or wrong, is that the claimants had an interest in a portion of the property, and they were in possession of it also. 7. In the result, the application is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.