( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the legal representative of the original 3rd defendant against the decree passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Bijapur, in r. A. No. 251 of 1968 modifying the decree passed by the court of the Addl. Munsiff, Bijapur, in CS. No. 172 of 1965. The respondent instituted the suit for declaration cf title to the suit property and for possession of the same. The suit properties are portions of original S. No. 17 of Torvi Village which has been sub-divided into S. Ncs. 17/1 and 17|2. ( 2 ) THE respondent filed SCS No. 295 of 1950 against Gurunath and obtained a money decree against him. After two infructuous execution proceedings, the respondent filed Darkhast No. 29 of 1961 and got the lands s. Nos. 17 and 18 attached on 10th April, 1961. These lands were sold in " execution of the decree and the respondent himself purchased the same en 4th June, 1962. As the application of the respondent to remove obstruction offered by Gurunath was dismissed, the plaintiff instituted the present suit within one year from the date of the dismissal of the said application. the suit was resisted so far as the land S. No. 17/2 with which alone we are concerned in this appeal on the ground that the same having been al'enated by Gurunath in favour of defendant-3 long before the same was attached in Darkhast No. 29 of 1961, no title has passed in favour of the respondent in respect of the land S. No. 17/2. The suit in respect of S. Nos. 17/1 arid 17/2 was dismissed by the court of first instance. As it is unnecessary i have not referred to facts pertaining to land S. No. 17/1. On appeal the learned Civil Judge has decreed the suit so far as land S. No. 17/2 is concerned. It is said decree that is challenged by the legal representative of defendant-3 in this second appeal. ( 3 ) THE attachment was effected on 10-4-1961 and thereafter defendant-3 made an application on 16-8-1961, i. e. , Misc. No. 67 of 1961 for raising the attachment. The said application made under Order 21 Rule 58 C. P. C. was net investigated on merits and came to be dismissed for default on 2nd february, 1962. ( 3 ) THE attachment was effected on 10-4-1961 and thereafter defendant-3 made an application on 16-8-1961, i. e. , Misc. No. 67 of 1961 for raising the attachment. The said application made under Order 21 Rule 58 C. P. C. was net investigated on merits and came to be dismissed for default on 2nd february, 1962. It is after the dismissal of the said application that the land was sold on 4th June, 1962. The Court below has held that the order of 2nd Feby. , 1962 dismissing the application of defendant-3 made under Or. 21 R. 58 of CPC. has become conclusive and that therefore defendant-3 is barred by Or. 21 R. 63 CPC. from asserting and establishing that he has title to the suit property and that the same has not passed in favour of the respondent. ( 4 ) SRI S. D. Chhatre, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that as the claim made by Gurunath, original defendant-3 in his application under Or. 21 R. 58 CPC. was not investigated on merits, but was dismissed for default, the bar contained in Or. 21 R. 63 CPC. is not attracted. In support of the contention of his, he relied upon the decision of the former High court of Myasore in -Sivapadegowda v. Anniahchar, AIR. 1954 Mys. 142. Justice Mallappa, of the former High Court of Mysore has taken the view that where a claim petition is dismissed for default without investigation nothing comes in the way ot the claimant or any person under him laying claim to the property or contending that the claimant continued to be the owner of the property till the time of his death in spite of the claimant's failure to get the order in the claim case set aside. Order 21 R. 63 CPC. provides: "where a claim or an objection is preferred, the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute, but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive. " in order to attract the provisions of Or. 21, R. 63 CPC. , the following have to be established:- (1) that a claim or an objection was preferred, and (2) that an order was made on such claim or objection. There is nothing in Or. 21 R, 63 CPC. " in order to attract the provisions of Or. 21, R. 63 CPC. , the following have to be established:- (1) that a claim or an objection was preferred, and (2) that an order was made on such claim or objection. There is nothing in Or. 21 R, 63 CPC. to indicate that the rejection of the claim or objection presented under Or. 21 R. ad CPC. should be only after investigation and on merits. Tne tenor of the language of or. 21 R. . 63 cpc, makes it clear that the bar contained in the said provision is attracted if the claim or objection preferred under Or. 21 R. 58 CPC. results in an order being made tor or against the party putting forward such a claim or objection. The consensus or the judicial opinion in tne country is consistent with the view which I am inclined to take. The same is tne view taken in Satindra Nath Bannerji v. Siva Prasad Bhakat , AIR. 1922 Cal. 166. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has taken the view tnat an order dismissing a claim for default as an order within the meaning of Or. 21, K. to CPC. ,and subject to the result of a regular suit is conclusive. Similar is tne view taken by the Allahabad Hign Court in Debt Das v. Maharaja Rup Chand,. AIR. 1927 All. 593. A Division Bench of tne Allahabad High Court has heid that where a claim or objection is preferred by a mortgagee under R. 58 and the court disallows the objection owing to deiaut of xne mortgagee to produce the mortgage deed in time, the unsuccessful objector comes within the words "the party against whom the order is made. " A full Bench ot the Madras high court has ruled in Machi Raju Venkataratnam v. Sri Raja Vaarevu ranganayakainma , (1918) ILR 41 Mad. 985 FB. that an oraer refusing to investigate a claim to attach property, on the ground that there was delay in thing it, is an order, passed 'against' the claimant within. 21 R. 63, CPC. , and Art. 11 of the limitation Act (IX of 1908) and that order on a claim petition meceiy stating that, as it was filed late, it will be notified to tne bladers is in effect an order rejecting the claim to which the provisions ot Or. 21 R. 63, CPC. , and Art. 11 of the limitation Act (IX of 1908) and that order on a claim petition meceiy stating that, as it was filed late, it will be notified to tne bladers is in effect an order rejecting the claim to which the provisions ot Or. 21 R. 63 will apply. Similar is the view taken By the Bombay High Court in 1 umbushet Rangari v. Ziparu Chaturdas Bairagi , AIR. 1933 Bom 190. ( 5 ) WITH respect, I agree with the view taken by the High Courts of calcutta, Allahabad, Madias and Bombay, referred to above. With great respect, it is not possible to agree with the view taken by Justice Maliappa in Shivapade Gowda v. Anniachar for the reasons already stated above hence it is not possible to accept the contention of Sri Chhatre that as the order made in Misc. No. 67 of 1961 was made for default, the provisions of or. 21, R. 63 are not attracted. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .