M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both counsel. In this revision petition the decree holder-revision petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mandya in Ex. No. 46 of 1993 on 16-4-1994 recalling the order of attachment of the consolidated fund of india at Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore, on the ground that his earlier order attaching the amount was irregular. ( 2 ) IT is clear from the material on record that on 6-8-1993 the Civil Judge ordered attachment of the consolidated fund of india, from the RBI, situated at Bangalore, to the extent of decree amount. In pursuance of this order of attachment, the rbi has deposited the decree amount. On 16-4-1984, the learned civil Judge passed the impugned order holding that the amount called for from the RBI by attaching the consolidated fund of india is not proper because the RBI was not within his territorial jurisdiction. Hence he held that the attachment of the fund of the RBI at Bangalore was irregular and directed the amount be sent back to the RBI. ( 3 ) FROM the facts of this case, it is clear that, when the learned Civil Judge ordered attachment of the amount from the consolidated fund of India at Bangalore, the learned government Pleader did not take any objection regarding the attachment. Nor did RBI raise any objection through a letter or any communication. This is clear from the entry in the order sheet dated 6-9-1993. What is more, the RBI sent the amount in pursuance of the attachment, thereby submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the executing Court at Mandya. ( 4 ) SECTION 21 (3) CPC says that no objection as to the competence of the executing Court with regard to the local limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court, unless such objection was taken in the executing Court, at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. In view of Section 21 (3) of CPC, the learned Civil Judge could not have passed the impugned order holding that he had no territorial jurisdiction to attach the fund of the RBI at Bangalore. In view of Section 21 (3) of CPC, the learned Civil Judge could not have passed the impugned order holding that he had no territorial jurisdiction to attach the fund of the RBI at Bangalore. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge holding that the attachment is irregular and the amount may be sent back to the RBI is set aside. The revision petition is allowed as stated herein. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader is granted four weekstime to file memo of appearance. --- *** --- .