Short Note : 1. The plaintiff brought the present suit under Order 21. 'rule 62 CPC. In consequence of 'objections of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under Order 21, 'rule 59 CPC having been allowed by the executing Court by order dated 14-12-1968. The plaintiff brought the present suit on 16-6-1996 within the "Statutory period of one year, and it is contended that the property is liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree passed "in his favour against respondent No.3 Kalloo. The defendants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contested the Suit and denied the claim of the plaintiff and alleged that the property is not liable "to be attached and sold in execution of the decree against respondent No.3 because the property does not belong to Kalloo but belongs to and is in possession of defendant-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as 'Owners of the same. The Coutts below dismissed the suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended- (i) That the learned A.D.J. has acted illegally in rejecting the application under Order 16, rule 17 CPC for amendinent of the plaint filed on 27-7-74. (ii) The second contention is that the decree-holder-plaintiff can maintain a suit and the learned A.D.J. has erred in holding otherwise; and that section 34 of the Specific Relief Act has been erroneously employed to non-suit the plaintiff. 2. Held : So far as the rejection of the application for amendment of the plaint is concerned, the allegations pertaining to collusion are being introduced for the first time in the plaint by the plaintiff-appellant. The facts must have been in the knowledge of the plaintiff-appellant and, there is no cogent explanation given in the application why the facts pertaining to collusion now sought to be alleged could not be alleged in the plaint originally. As such the plea appears to be afterthought and has to be rejected being an outcome of mala fides. The amendment is sought Just, to get the trial re-opened so that the plaintiff maybe able to fill up the lacuna, if any, in his case. No illegality has been pointed out in the order passed by the learned ADJ so far as the rejection of the amendment application is concerned. 3. The second contention is that the decree-holder can maintain the present suit and the learned ADJ has erred in holding otherwise. No illegality has been pointed out in the order passed by the learned ADJ so far as the rejection of the amendment application is concerned. 3. The second contention is that the decree-holder can maintain the present suit and the learned ADJ has erred in holding otherwise. At the very outset it may be said that the learned ADJ has erred in employing section 34 of the Specific Relief Act to the present situation. It has absolutely no bearing to the issue at hand. It appears that that the learned ADJ has laboured under the impression that section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (corresponding to section 42 of the Specific' Relief Act, 1877) is exhaustive in character. This is erroneous, in view of the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down in AIR 1967 SC 436 (Vemareddy Ramaraghava Reddy and others v. Konduru Seshu Reddy and others). 4. The present suit has been filed under Order 21, rule 63 CPC. In the objection petition filed under rule 58 of Order 21, CPC-the decree-holder was a party. As such rule 63 of Order 21 confers Upon him statutory right to file a suit. 5. The words "a party against whom an order is made" occurring in Rule 63 are comprehensive enough to include the dceree-holder. Therefore, he has a, statutory right to bring a suit. The nature of the claim of the decree-holder is that he says that the property in dispute is liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree obtained by him against Kallo respondent No.3. No doubt, the rule does not speak of any party but only of the party against whom an' order is made, but the decree-holder is the party in the instant case against whom an order under Order 21, rule 58 has been made. Therefore, the learned ADJ acted contrary to law in non-suiting the plaintiff on. the ground that he has no right to maintain the present suit under Order 21, R. 63. There is no decision on merits of the case by the learned ADJ therefore, the only course left open is to remand the case for being heard of the appeal on merits and decided the same in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.