JUDGMENT B. Dayal, J. - This is a judgment-debtor's appeal against an order that order the present appeal has passed in execution directing execution to proceed against the property alleged by the judgement-debtor or be of firm Mathura Prasad Sri Prakash. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are not in dispute. The Plaintiff-decree-holder, respondent in this case, filed a suit against firm Mathura Prasad Suraj Prasad through Suraj Prasad. During the pendency of the suit Suraj Prasad died, and his sons, Murlidhar, Gangadhar and Bansidhar, were brought on the record as persons through whom firm Mathura Prasad Suraj Prasad was being sued. A decree was passed in that suit against firm Mathura Prasad Suraj Prasad through Murlidhar, Gangadhar and Bansidhar. In execution of that decree the decree-holder attached a factory alleging in the execution application that it belonged to Murlidhar, in the name of Mathura Prasad Sri Prakash. An objection was made by Murlidhar that the attached property belonged to firm Mathura Prasad Sri Prakash which was an independent registered firm under the Partnership Act and this property could not be attached in execution of the decree which was either against the firm Mathura Prasad Suraj Prasad, or at the best personally against the partners of that firm, including Murlidhar. 3. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing the parties, did not go into the question whether the property attached belonged exclusively to Murlidhar or not, but proceeded upon an assumption that the property belonged to firm Mathura Prasad Sri Prakash and held that in any case the decree being against Murlidhar it could be executed against the property attached because Murlidhar was at least at a partner in the firm Mathura Prasad Sri Prakash which owned that property, and consequently rejected the objection filed by Murlidhar. Against that order the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that under Or. 21, Rule 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure a decree which was not against the firm Mathura Prasad Sri Prakash or against any of its partners as such could not be executed against the property belonging to that firm, and the court below was, therefore, wrong in directing execution to proceed against the property attached which belonged to this firm. 5. After hearing learned counsel we think that the objection has to be allowed. 5. After hearing learned counsel we think that the objection has to be allowed. There is no doubt that the decree under execution is not against firm Mathura Prasad Sri Prakash and is also not against any person as a partner of this firm. Or. 21, Rule 49, sub-Rule (1) is as follows:- "Save as otherwise provided by Prasad Sri Prakash. An objection this rule, property belonging to a was made by Murlidhar that the partnership shall not be attached or attached property belonged to firm sold in execution of decree other Mathura Prasad Sri Prakash which than a decree passed against the firm was an independent registered firm or against the partners in the firm under the Partnership Act and this as such." This decree being against another firm and the partners of that another firm, cannot be executed against the property of firm Mathura Prasad Sri Prakash. The only remedy which may be open to the decree-holder, if he wanted to proceed against the share of any of the partners of this firm was to apply under Order 21, Rule 49, sub-Rule (2). From an application made in this Court it appears that such an application has now been made and it is, therefore, not necessary for us to go into the question whether such an application was competent or not, which shall be decided by the court below. Suffice it to say, for the present, that the objection filed by the judgment-debtor was a valid objection and must be allowed. 6. The order of the court below is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed with costs. The papers will be sent back to the court below for deciding the execution application according to law. Appeal allowed.