Judgment 1. This is a decree-holders application in revision against the order of the 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Dumka allowing an application under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Mr. Ghosal appearing in support of this application raised a question that the application under R.58 itself was not maintainable and therefore, the executing Court has committed an apparent error of jurisdiction. 2. The short facts for appreciating the question raised, for my consideration may be briefly stated. The property involved in this case is a piece of land with a house measuring 1 kathas 16 dhurs appertaining to plot No. 1900 situate within Pakur town. It was recorded in the name of one Lakshminia Bhagatwain, widow of late Thakur Prasad Bhagat. Lakshminia died leaving behind three sons namely, (1) Bhaglum (2) Jamuna and (3) Ganesh. The second son namely, Jamuna executed a mortgage bond in the year 1968 with respect to the said property in favour of the decree-holder describing himself as the sixteen annas owner of the land in question. On the basis of that mortgage bond, the petitioner brought a mortgage suit in the year 1970, in which a compromise decree was passed in his favour which is under execution. In this execution proceeding the opposite party, who are both sons of the aforesaid Bhaglu, filed a claim case under Rule 58, Order 21 of the Code, on the ground that Jamuna Bhagat could not have mortgaged the entire property inasmuch as his share was only 12 dhurs and that the mortgaged decree was not binding on them. That application was registered as a miscellaneous case and evidence was gone into by the parties. The learned subordinate Judge has recorded a finding of fact that the applicants, before him, namely, the opposite party "Succeeded to prove their possession on two-third portion of the suit house whereas the possession of Jamuna Bhagat on two-third share appears to be very much doubtful." He accordingly allowed the application. 3. Mr. Ghosal, as already indicated above, contended that the nature of the decree being a mortgage decree, the application of the opposite party under Rule 58 itself was not maintainable as there was no question of attachment in a mortgage decree. 3. Mr. Ghosal, as already indicated above, contended that the nature of the decree being a mortgage decree, the application of the opposite party under Rule 58 itself was not maintainable as there was no question of attachment in a mortgage decree. He further contended that there being a mortgage decree with regard to the properties in question in favour of the petitioner, the executing court could not have gone behind the same by entertaining the application of the opposite party. 4. Both the contentions are entirely erroneous and must be rejected. The first contention is based on the ignorance of the amendment of Rule 58 by this Court. The Patna High Court has amended Rule 58 and has substituted its own Rule in place of the Central Rules 58 and that reads as follows :- "When any claim is preferred to any property the subject-matter of the execution proceeding or any objection is made to the attachment thereof 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 or object......" The relevant part of Rule 58 as substituted by the Patna High Court amendment, just quoted, clearly indicates that the Patna amendment widens the scope of Rule 58. 5 Similar amendment has been made to Rules 59 and 60 of the Code as well by this Court, and on examining the scope and effect of the amendments it becomes obvious that Rule 58 applies not merely to the question of attachment of any property in execution of a decree but also to all properties, which are subject-matter of the execution proceeding. Consequently a claim to the mortgaged property directed to be sold in execution of the mortgage decree comes within the purview of Order 21, Rule 58 and the question of paramount title can be decided if it is raised in a claim case under Order 21, Rule 58 within the mischief of the amended provisions of this Court. 6. Once this proposition is accepted and for which I have got no doubt in my mind, the second contention of Mr. Ghosal also falls flat; as in that event, the executing court is clothed with the jurisdiction to examine the question of paramount title and therefore, it will not lead to going behind the decree. 6. Once this proposition is accepted and for which I have got no doubt in my mind, the second contention of Mr. Ghosal also falls flat; as in that event, the executing court is clothed with the jurisdiction to examine the question of paramount title and therefore, it will not lead to going behind the decree. I find all support for this view from the Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sarju Prasad Singh V/s. A. James, AIR 1944 Pat 24 where it was observed by Manohar Lall, J. who gave his separate judgement that; "Here, however, the Legislature intends by the amendment that the paramount title must be decided I do not see any hardship in the matter at all as it is desirable that the final rights of the parties to sell the mortgaged properties so as to pass full title to the auction purchaser should be decided in presence of the real parties concerned as early as possible." I find myself in full agreement with the above observation of the learned Judge. 7 The result of the above discussions is that this application must fail and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. The hearing fee is however, assessed at Rs. 55 only.