H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Gangadhar R. Gurumath, learned Counsel for the revisionists-applicants and Sri P. C. Ajjappa holding brief for Sri Kaleemulla Shariff, learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition arises from the order of the execution Court namely Munsiff, Siruguppa, dismissing the revision petitioners objections under Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC as not maintainable with the observations that in view of the order passed by his predecessor on 15-7-1992 on LA. 2 and LA. 3 which were for the impleadment of the claimants as parties to the petition rejected the application for impleadment. While passing the order on 15-7-1992, it had observed that the decree in suit No. 587 of 1989 having been passed, the question of filing objections does not arise until the decree passed in the suit is set aside. From the order dated 10-8-1993 which has been passed by the learned Munsiff, Siruguppa, rejecting the revision petitioners application under Order 21, Rule 58 it appears that he has passed this order holding application under Order 21, Rule 58 as not maintainable in view of order dated 15-7-1992 passed on I. A. 2 and LA. 3. It means by this order, the Munsiff has not given any decision on the claim made by application Order 21, Rule 58 but has only rejected the application as not maintainable. A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the order may be said to be appealable, but no revision is maintainable under Section 115 in view of Order 21, Rule 58 (4) which says that order amounts to a decree and is subject to conditions of appeal. It has further been contended that once an order has been passed on 15-7-1992, that order has been binding and therefore there was no error of jurisdiction on the part of the authority in rejecting the application under Order 21, Rule 58. ( 3 ) THIS preliminary objection of the respondents' Counsel has been hotly contested by the learned Counsel for the applicants by urging that this order by itself is not an order deciding the claim or adjudicating the rights claimed by the present petitioners by virtue of application under Order 21, Rule 58. ( 3 ) THIS preliminary objection of the respondents' Counsel has been hotly contested by the learned Counsel for the applicants by urging that this order by itself is not an order deciding the claim or adjudicating the rights claimed by the present petitioners by virtue of application under Order 21, Rule 58. It is an order whereby the Court/authority has rejected the application as basically not maintainable and refused to exercise jurisdiction to decide the claim made under Order 21, Rule 58 on merits. ( 4 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. As regards the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the revision, I do not find any substance. No doubt, as provided by Order 21, Rule 58 (4) in adjudication of the claim or objection under this rule, an order made thereon adjudicating the claim, no doubt it has been provided that the same shall have force as decree and it shall be subject to right of appeal. But here the question is whether the claim that has been made by the revision petitioner under Order 21, Rule 58 has been adjudicated upon. In my opinion, the order impugned has not adjudicated the claim of independent right and title to, which the revision petitioners have claimed, with respect to the property attached under Order 21, Rule 58. The Court has simply said that the objection itself is not maintainable in view of order dated 15-7-1992 on LA. 2 and LA. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent tried to submit that this Court has not examined the question. He tried to invite my attention to certain observations contained in the order. But those observations are not the observations of the Court disposing of application under Order 21, Rule 58. He has only referred to the quotation contained in order dated 15-7-1992 dismissing the application for impleadment. So a perusal of the order only indicates that he has dismissed the application under Order 21, Rule 58 as not maintainable. Learned Munsiff observes that, "with above objections if LA. 1 and LA. 2 are dismissed then the question of filing of objections to the petition does not arise as observed by my predecessor whether the order passed by him is whether right or wrong. Still it is binding upon both the parties and the Court. Learned Munsiff observes that, "with above objections if LA. 1 and LA. 2 are dismissed then the question of filing of objections to the petition does not arise as observed by my predecessor whether the order passed by him is whether right or wrong. Still it is binding upon both the parties and the Court. Under these circumstances, the contention of HKM still he has got objection does not arise at all unless passed by my predecessor as stated". Taking this view, he has rejected the application as not maintainable. An order holding an application or objection as not maintainable and rejecting the application, that may not amount to a decree, but no doubt it means to a final order closing doors. This order, no doubt when it does not amount to a decree, then it may be said to amount to be a case decided. A decision made under Order 21, Rule 58 deciding on merit the claim made under Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC may and does amount to be a decree, but rejecting under Order 21, Rule 58 without considering the merits of the claim made cannot amount to a decree and clause (4) of Rule 58 may not be applicable to such cases. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for the respondent is without substance. There is no decision on merits of the claim. In the present case, the Execution Court has opined that the order on application under Order 1, Rule 10 rejecting the same will operate as res judicata. In my opinion this view of Execution Court is not sustainable. The suit proceedings might have been closed by decree being passed. The Trial Court might have been justified in rejecting the application that now it is not open to the Court or the authority to implead when the decree has already been passed. No doubt, appeal is filed and if during the pendency of the appeal, the person would have made the application which could be said that the proceedings of the suit were pending and application was rejected. ( 5 ) THUS considered, the order dated 15-7-1992, in my opinion, cannot be said to debar the applicant-revision petitioners from making application under Order 21, Rule 58. Rule 58 of Order 21 provides as under:"58. ( 5 ) THUS considered, the order dated 15-7-1992, in my opinion, cannot be said to debar the applicant-revision petitioners from making application under Order 21, Rule 58. Rule 58 of Order 21 provides as under:"58. Adjudication of claims to or objections to attachment of property. (1) Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance with the provisions herein contained: provided that no such claim or objection shall be entertained (a) where before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property attached has already been sold; or (b) where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. (2) All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property attached) arising between the parties to a proceeding or their representatives under this rule and relevant to the adjudication of the claim or objection, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the claim or objection and not by a separate suit. (3) Upon the determination of the questions referred to in sub-rule (2), the Court shall, in accordance with such determination (a) allow the claim or objection and release the property from attachment either wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit; or (b) disallow the claim or objection; or (c) continue the attachment subject to any mortgage, charge or other interest in favour of any person; or (d) pass such order as in the circumstances of the case it deems fit. (4) Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. (5) Where a claim or an objection is preferred and the Court, under the proviso to sub-rule (1), refuses to entertain it, the party against whom such 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, an order so refusing to entertain the claim or objection shall be conclusive". A reading of the Rule 58, sub-rule (1) reveals that objection or claim can be made to the attachment of a property attached in execution of decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment. It keeps open that objection of claim can be filed by any person having interest in the property. No doubt, proviso to sub-rule (1) puts two riders that such claim shall not be entertained if the property attached has already been sold. Here in the present case it is not a case that property has already been sold. The second ground whereon the objection is not entertained is if the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter, in my opinion, the applicants who are claiming independent rights in the property or share in the property, parties definitely have the right to move the application and file the claim under Order 21, Rule 58. A perusal of sub-rule (2) also reveals that all questions including the question relating to right, title or interest in the property attached arising between the parties to a proceeding or their representatives under this rule and relevant to the adjudication of the claim or objection, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the claim or objection and not by a separate suit. This sub-rule is very clear in its intention. No doubt, after the claim has been adjudicated and order has been passed under Rule 58, that order as provided under sub-rule (4), will amount to a decree and will have same force as of decree and will always be appealable to Court by way of appeal from decree, under Section 96 of the CPC as an appeal from decree. ( 7 ) THUS considered in my opinion, the view of the Court below that in view of order dated 15-7-1992, the objections under Order 21, Rule 58 were not maintainable and it could not be considered, is erroneous and by taking such an erroneous view of the matter, the Court below has illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Order 21, Rule 58 to decide the claim and objections on merits. The order impugned, as such, deserves to be set aside which is passed under Section 47, because if order is allowed to remain on record, it will only allow the injustice to prevail and will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. ( 8 ) AS such, this revision is allowed. The order impugned dated 10-8-1993 is set aside. The Execution Court i. e. , the learned Munsiff, Siruguppa is hereby directed to decide on merits, the objections filed by the petitioners under Order 21, Rule 58 in accordance with law after taking necessary evidence, if necessary. Costs are made easy. --- *** --- .