KEDAMBADY JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) BY consent of the parties these Revision Petitions are taken up for final disposal. ( 2 ) THE Revision Petition No. 4113/1991 is directed against the order of the 4th Additional City Civil Judge, passed on I. A. I. in execution Case No. 978/1991 dated 6-9-1991 and Revision Petition no. 3981/1991 is likewise directed against the order dated 2-9-1991 passed by the Civil Judge, in Execution Case No. 1002/1991. Since both the Revision Petitions are pertaining to the transfer decree in the summary Suit No. 5/1988 and the common question involved, they are disposed of by a common order. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS are decree holders and respondents are the Judgment Debtors in Execution Case Nos. 1002/1991 and 978/1991 respectively. The petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 4113/1991 filed an I. A. I. in Execution Case No. 978/1991 under Order 21 Rule 30 read with Section 151 C. P. C. to dispense with the notice and order of attachment In Civil Revision Petition No. 3981/1991, the petitioner- decree holder filed an application in Execution Case No. 1002/1991 for seeking an attachment of the deposit in the name of respondent- judgment Debtor in the second respondent Sangli Bank Limited, gandhi Nagar, Bangalore, and the amounts to the credit of the respondents lying with M/s. Santhosh Sales Agency which is a partnership Firm consisting of the wives of the respondents 2, 3 and 5 (J. D. Rs.), as its partners and under the active management of respondent No. 3. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner-decree holder is that they filed a Summary Suit No. 5/1988 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior division) at Porabandar, Gujarat and obtained a decree dated 16-4-1990 against the Judgment Debtors for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,48,190/- together with interest at 18% P. A. The Judgment Debtors preferred an appeal in C. R. A. No. 560/1990 but there is no stay of the execution of the order passed in Summary Suit 5/1988. The said decree was transferred to the City Civil Court, Bangalore, with an appropriate Memorandum under Section 39 of C. P. C. The certificate of non-satisfaction of the decree was also issued. The said decree was transferred to the City Civil Court, Bangalore, with an appropriate Memorandum under Section 39 of C. P. C. The certificate of non-satisfaction of the decree was also issued. Pursuant to that the petitioner-decree holder filed the Execution Petition No. 978/1991 with i. A. I. , seeking assistance of the Court for attachment of the movables described in the Schedules 'a' and 'b'. ( 5 ) THE Execution Court, heard the Counsel for the petitioner on 30-8-1991 and the matter was adjourned to 6-9-1991. In the meantime, in the other Execution Petition No. 1002/1991 the Court ordered notice against which the petitioner-decree holder filed c. R. P. No. 3981/1991 before this Court and obtained an ex-parte order of attachment of the deposits of the Judgment Debtors. The Counsel for the decree holder brought to the notice of the Execution Court, the interim order passed by the High Court and requested to dispense with the notice of the order of the attachment of movables. The execution Court, however, dismissed I. A. I and adjourned the case to 11-10-1991. ( 6 ) HENCE, the petitioner filed the second Revision Petition No. 4113/1991. The Court while admitting the said Revision Petition, passed an ex-parte order of attachment of movables of the Judgment debtors detailed in the list on 13-9-1991 with notice on I. A. I. to the respondents (Judgment Debtors ). Subsequently on 22-10-1991 M/s. Santhosh Sales Agency, a partnership firm represented by Smt. Kokila V. Mehta filed two I. As. one for impleading, another for lifting the order of attachment on the ground that the movables belonging to the partnership firm and they are the owners of the movables. The petitioners have submitted that the bailiff could not attach the property as there was resistance and sought an order for sealing the properties by the Court with the help of jurisdictional police. This Court after hearing the parties has passed the order which reads as follows:"the goods in the premises No. 149/2, Mysore Road, Bangalore, in the godown to be sealed by the Court Bailiff if necessary with the help of the jurisdictional police. The learned Counsel Sri G. S. Visweswara filed two I. As. stating that the property mentioned in Schedules A and B belongs to the impleading applicants. Copies of the I. As. to be served to the petitioners within two days. The learned Counsel Sri G. S. Visweswara filed two I. As. stating that the property mentioned in Schedules A and B belongs to the impleading applicants. Copies of the I. As. to be served to the petitioners within two days. Objections, if any, to be filed by the petitioner. Post this matter for orders on I. As. on 25-10-1991. The petitioners have given undertaking that they will not proceed in regard to the attachment of the premises bearing No. 13 and 14, Upstairs, Nehru Nagar, South Park Road, First Cross, bangalore, until further orders. " ( 7 ) ON 4-11-1991 this Court ordered to post Revision Petitions Nos. 4113/1991 and 3981/1991 for further hearing. ( 8 ) WHEN the matter came up for hearing on 6-11-1991 applicant- M/s. Santhosh Sales Agencies through their Counsel filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58 with a prayer for direction to remove the seal put by the order of this Court in premises bearing no. 149/2 and 149 in Mysore Road in the process of attachment of movables, on the ground that entire movables belongs to applicant. Judgment Debtors have no right, title and interest in the products which are in the premises. The petitioner then resisted the application by filing a counter wherein inter alia contended that movables in the premises which was sealed by the order of the Court does not belong to the applicant. The respondents (Judgment Debtors) are carrying on business in the said premises and the movables and other properties belongs to respondents (Judgment Debtors ). Further, it is contended that the application is not maintainable, such application will have to be filed in the Execution Court and not in this Court. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel Sri G. S. Visweswara and Sri S. V. Shastry appearing for the applicants have submitted that since this Court in exercise of power under Section 115 has passed an order of attachment of the movables of the third parties who claim the property as their own, could file an application under Order 21 Rule 58 and this court is bound to hold an enquiry and adjudicate the matter as if it were an Executing Court. Further, he has submitted that since there was an attachment order by this Court and in pursuance of it, the premises in which goods were sealed, this Court should atleast hold a minimum enquiry as to find out whether the goods belong to the applicant, and lift the attachment. ( 10 ) COUNTERING this argument, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Santhosh Hegde, appearing for the petitioner has sub mitted that the application under Order 21 Rule 58, does not lie in this Court, for the very provision after the amendment has ceased to be one being a summary investigative nature into one of adjudicative nature and gives to the order passed therein a force of decree. Under sub-rule (2) of Order 21 Rule 58 Court entertaining the application filed under sub-rule (1) has to determine all questions including questions relating to the right, title and interest in the properties attached arising between the parties to the application; the Court (High Court) in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 cannot adjudicate the matter by taking evidence as if it is a Court of original jurisdiction, much less, the execution Court. The objector-applicant being third party could make such application only before the execution Court not before this Court. In support of his submission, he has relied on a Decision of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1956 SC 359 . ( 11 ) LET me consider the respective contention of the parties. Point for determination is - (A) Where High Court in exercise of revisional power under section 115 C. P. C. passes an order of attachment in an execution Case can it entertain an application of the objectors-third party under Order 21 Rule 58 of C. P. C. to investigate and adjudicate the matter (taking evidence) to decide the right, title and possession of movables attached. (b) Can it be said that the High Court becomes Execution Court, the moment it passes an order of attachment of movables in exercise of revisional power in execution case, and as such it gets original jurisdiction to adjudicate the right and title to the property under Order 21 Rule 58. ( 12 ) THE contentions of Mr. Visweswara and Mr. Shastry that the High Court becomes Executing Court if any order of attachment of property is made by it, bristles with legal infirmity and illegalities, it cannot be countenanced. ( 12 ) THE contentions of Mr. Visweswara and Mr. Shastry that the High Court becomes Executing Court if any order of attachment of property is made by it, bristles with legal infirmity and illegalities, it cannot be countenanced. Under Order 21 Rule 58 the word 'court' therein is the Executing Court. If the Executing Court refuses or fails to exercise the jurisdiction or commits material irregularity in acting, then the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set right either by setting aside, modifying or by passing an order. When that is done, the High Court merely keeps the lower Court (the Execution Court) within its bounds by correcting its order. That by itself does not and cannot make the High Court vested with the original jurisdiction to try the matter as if it were an Executing Court. ( 13 ) IN the Supreme Court Decision reported in AIR 1956 SC 359 . it is observed that where the defendant to a decree for a specific performance asks the appellate Court for transfer of the decree for execution to the original Court, the plaintiff is not bound to raise any objection to execution in the appellate Court, especially where the question involves an enquiry into fact, and such question would not be tried by an appellate Court. It would be more appropriate for an original Court to which the decree is transferred for execution to enquire into it. ( 14 ) COMMENTING on Section 144 C. P. C. in Mulla in the commentary volume 1 page 728 has said that "for instance where a decree or order is varied or reversed by superior Court in its appellant or revisional jurisdiction, although such a superior Court passed the decree order, it is not that Court to which restitution application is to be made. The principle is that the Court which passed an erroneous decree or order which must rectify its error and place the party in position which they would have occupied but for such decree or order as has been reversed. " ( 15 ) THE expression of word 'court' occurring in the provisions under Order 21 Rule 58 is the Executing Court, and if its order is varied or reversed by the superior Court in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, although such superior Court passes, an order of attachment, it is. " ( 15 ) THE expression of word 'court' occurring in the provisions under Order 21 Rule 58 is the Executing Court, and if its order is varied or reversed by the superior Court in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, although such superior Court passes, an order of attachment, it is. not that Court to which the application under Order 21 Rule 58 to be made to adjudicate upon the right, title or possession of the property by the objector-applicant. It is the Executing Court which passed an erroneous order which came to be reversed by the superior Court would have to entertain the application of the objector under Order 21 Rule 58 and adjudicate the matter, and if an order is made, it would be a decree, which is appealable. ( 16 ) THE construction suggested by the learned Counsel for applicant-objector that High Court when passes an order of attachment, although in course of its revisional jurisdiction it partakes the character of Executing Court and the application under Order 21 rule 58 could be filed in the High Court will lead to anomalies. ( 17 ) AS per Order 21 Rule 58, if the objectors-application is adjudicated as to his right, title and possession of the property, the order passed by the Court is a decree which is appealable. If that order is passed by the High Court as an Executing Court, where shall the appeal lie against that order? Then it would lead to anomalous position. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that this application of the objector-under Order 21 Rule 58 will not lie to this court (High Court) when this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction passed an order of attachment in an execution proceedings before the Executing Court, which erred in not exercising its jurisdiction as to the attachment of movables in Execution of decree, I am also of the view that merely passing an order of the attachment by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction, it does not become Execution Court itself. Both points are answered accordingly. Both points are answered accordingly. ( 18 ) WITH regard to the merits of the case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Execution Court failed to notice that question of issue notice of execution arises only under the circumstances referred to in Order 21 Rule 22 of C. P. C. But, the instant case is not covered under Order 21 Rule 22 of C. P. C. It is further argued that the lower Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by dismissing the application for dispensing with the notice to the respondent and has failed to order ex-parte attachment. The reasons given by the lower Court, that Judgment Debtors have preferred an appeal, and it is a transfer decree and as such notice is to be issued to the Judgment Debtor is not sound one and improper exercise of jurisdiction. ( 19 ) IN C. R. P. No. 3981/1991 the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that refusal to issue prohibitory order on the ground that it is a transfer decree, the notice is liable to be issued to the Judgment debtor is unsustainable in law. The Counsel appearing for the respondents have contended that the Judgment Debtors have preferred an appeal against the Judgment and decree and as such lower Court has rightly refused to issue attachment order as well as prohibitory order, without first issuing of notice to Judgment Debtor, and that has been done in the instant case. ( 20 ) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under Section 42 of C. P. C. the Court executing the decree sent to it by transfer, shall have same powers in executing such decree as it would have been passed by itself. In support of this submission, he relied on the Decision reported in AIR 1956 SC 359 *. Further, he has argued that there was no stay in the appeal, against the execution of the decree. ( 21 ) THE contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in these Revisions Petitions are well founded. The decree has been transferred to the City Civil Court, Bangalore, with an appropriate memorandum under Section 39 C. P. C. with a certificate of non-satisfaction of the decree. There is no stay of the execution of the decree. As such, there is no impediment for execution of the decree. The decree has been transferred to the City Civil Court, Bangalore, with an appropriate memorandum under Section 39 C. P. C. with a certificate of non-satisfaction of the decree. There is no stay of the execution of the decree. As such, there is no impediment for execution of the decree. It is the case of the petitioner that the Judgment Debtors are trying to remove the movables to some secret places and if Judgment Debtors were issued notice, then there will be no chance of recovery of the amount covered under the decree. In that circumstances it was sought for issue of attachment of movables as well as the prohibitory order withdrawing the amounts in deposit. ( 22 ) UNDER Section 42 the transferor Court having all the powers of the Court which passed the decree and it can decide all questions arising in the executions. When the transferee Court has all the powers of the Court which passed the decree, it is incumbent upon it to exercise its power vested in it while executing the decree. When an application to attach movables as well as issue of prohibitory order from withdrawing the deposit are sought, the Executing Court ought to have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the appropriate order to secure ends of justice. There are no circumstances referred to in Order 21 Rule 22 C. P. C. to issue notice as the instant case does not come under the provisions for issue of notice before considering the issue of order of attachment. This is a money decree which is sought to be executed by the transferee execution Court which is clothed with all the powers of Court which passed the decree, as such the order of attachment ought to have been passed. Lower Court has passed the order refusing to issue ex-parte order of attachment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice this Court has passed the order of attachment of movables and also issued a prohibitory order. ( 23 ) IN so far as the application for impleading filed by the applicants and the application for lifting the attachment and prohibitory orders are concerned, the learned Counsel for the applicants have submitted that they would not press them in view of the applications filed under Order 21 Rule 58. ( 23 ) IN so far as the application for impleading filed by the applicants and the application for lifting the attachment and prohibitory orders are concerned, the learned Counsel for the applicants have submitted that they would not press them in view of the applications filed under Order 21 Rule 58. Having regard to the said submission, the application for impleading and application for lifting attachment and prohibitory orders are dismissed as not pressed. ( 24 ) THE learned Counsel for the applicants have also submitted that this Court atleast may send the applications of the applicants-objectors filed under Order 21 Rule 58 to the Execution court to consider the application and pass an order expeditiously by fixing the time frame by the Court to dispose of the matter. As otherwise, the applicants-objectors will be put to injury as the movables in the premises which have been seized and sealed are of perishable goods. ( 25 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, these revision petitions are to succeed and they are allowed. The order passed by the lower court in Execution Petition No. 1002/1991 and 978/1991 are hereby set aside. The order of attachment and prohibitory orders passed by this Court shall continue until application of the objector filed under order 21 Rule 58 are disposed of by the Court in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both parties. ( 26 ) LOWER Court is directed to dispose of the application of applicant-objector within one month. If during the proceedings, the court below finds the goods seized by attachment order are subject to speedy decay and natural decay, the Court may pass such order directing the Officer concerned to sell at once and deposit the amount realised in the Court. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 22-11 -1991. --- *** --- .