B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is the decreeholder, has filed this revision against the orders in 1-A. No. 343 of 1994 in O. S. No. 19 of 1985 dated 28-11-1995 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Razole dismissing the cheque petition filed for withdrawal of the amounts in deposit. ( 2 ) THE brief relevant facts necessary for the purpose of this revision are that the petitioner had filed O. S. No. 19 of 1985 originally in the Court of Subordinate judge, Amalapuram for recovery of rs. 20,000/- on the basis of the promissory note executed by the respondents herein. Pending the suit, she obtained orders of garnishee attachment of the amounts lying with the Executive Engineer, Godavari central Division, Dhawaleswaram, which were subsequently made absolute on 16-4-1985. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Court of Subordinate judge at Razole. As the amount was not deposited, the petitioner had filed LA. No. 242 of 1991 for implementation of the said orders and accordingly a sum of rs. 32,235/- was deposited on 15-7-1991 through a demand draft, though under protest. In that application, notice was given to the Assistant Government Pleader, who was representing the said authority. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 29-1-1992. The present application seeking issuance of cheque for the amount in deposit added with the interest accrued by way of fixed deposit was filed. On notice, a counter-affidavit in detail was filed by the said authority raising several objections for withdrawal of the said amount, mainly on the ground that the judgment-debtors are not entitled to the amount as there has been a breach on their part and the amount is yet to be settled. Further, the amount attached was only an advance payment but not towards any bills. With these and several other objections, die payment was objected to. ( 3 ) THE Court below on a consideration of these objections has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that any such attachment made is only to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff-decreeholder, but it does not entitle the plaintiff to make any claim thereon without proving the ownership. ( 3 ) THE Court below on a consideration of these objections has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that any such attachment made is only to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff-decreeholder, but it does not entitle the plaintiff to make any claim thereon without proving the ownership. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing both the Counsel, including the Government Pleader for arbitration who was given notice in this revision, the question, which arises for consideration is as to whether the garnishee can raise any such objection at this stage, especially in a cheque petition for withdrawal of the amount which is attached. ( 5 ) THERE is no controversy as to the facts and events in the present case. In the suit filed by the plaintiff, the amount lying with the above said authority was attached on 29-3-1985 and the said order was made absolute on 16-4-1985. Later, since the amount was not deposited on transfer of the suit to other Court, the petitioner had to move another application in I. A. No. 242 of 1991, which after notice to the Assistant government Pleader the authority had deposited the amount on 15-7-1991, though under protest. Subsequently, the suit was decreed on 29-1-1992. Accordingly, the present petition was filed for issuance of cheque for the said amount by adding interest accrued in fixed deposit. ( 6 ) UNDER the provisions of Order XXI rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any amount lying with any third party can always be attached as garnishee. While considering the said provisions, as it stood prior to the Amendment Act of 1976, this Court in C. V. Raghavayya vs. C. T. Distributors has held:"it is open to the garnishee to show that nothing was due and payable by him to the judgment-debtor. The very purpose of depositing the money being to enable him to recoup any loss to be sustained by him out of it he can appropriate the deposit towards it even after receipt of notice of attachment. The decreeholder cannot by means of attachment stand in a better position as regards the garnishee than the judgment-debtor and obtain from him a relief which the judgment-debtor himself could not. The decreeholder cannot by means of attachment stand in a better position as regards the garnishee than the judgment-debtor and obtain from him a relief which the judgment-debtor himself could not. "however, under the Amendment Act of 104 of 1976, the said rule has undergone substantial change with the addition of rules 46-A to 46-1 contemplating a detailed procedure by enquiry in respect of such garnishee proceedings. Order XXI rule 46-A contemplates a notice to garnishee and under Rule 46-B an order is to be passed against garnishee for complying with the terms of the notice. Rule 46-C contemplates specifically of trial of disputed questions whenever the garnishee comes out with such dispute and it further contemplates that the said dispute shall be tried as if it were an issue in a suit. As against the order under "rule 46-C, a regular appeal is provided under Rule 46-H as a decree. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid provisions, it was always open to the authority to raise any such dispute immediately after the order of attachment in I. A. No. 236 of 1985 or at least while making the deposit on 15-7-1991 in I. A. No. 242 of 1991. Neither any such objection was raised nor these applications were contested even though the authority was represented through the assistant Government Pleader Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 29-1-1992. Thus, the proceedings have come to an end and the orders of garnishee attachment have become final since they remained unchallenged. It is only when the petitioner had filed a cheque petition for withdrawal of the amount, detailed counter-affidavit was filed by the authority raising all these objections. The scope of the present application is very limited and the relief sought for is only for issuance of cheque in respect of the amount in deposit. As per the decree, the petitioner is entitled to the amount towards the discharge of the liability of the judgment-debtors. The authority having not taken any such steps of objecting to or raising any dispute at proper time i. e. , in either of the interlocutory applications in I. A. No. 236 of 1985 or LA. No. 242 of 1991 cannot now try to raise any objection and no such objection can be entertained by the Court. In view of the same, the objections are not maintainable. No. 242 of 1991 cannot now try to raise any objection and no such objection can be entertained by the Court. In view of the same, the objections are not maintainable. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The order in I. A. No. 343 of 1994 dated 28-11-1995 is set aside and the lower Court is directed to dispose of LA. No. 343 of 1994 afresh. No costs.