JUDGMENT SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK, J.:- This micellaneous appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Judge, Gopalganj, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 36/92. 2. The aforesaid Miscellaneous case was filed by the appellant under Order XXI, Rule 58 C.P.C. to release 2/11th share of the appellant from the suit property which was going to be delivered to the respondents-1st set of this appeal. The appellant had preferred an applicant under Order XXI, Rule 58 C.P.C. before the Court of Sub-Judge, Gopalganj, in execution of a decree passed in Title Suit No. 658/74. The learned Sub-Judge allowed this application in a Miscellaneous Case No. 15/90. However, the appellante Court in the impugned order set aside the order of the Sub-judge, Gopalganj and, hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Admitted facts are that the respondents-1st set of this appeal had filed mortage Suit No. 658/74 which was decreed and then in the execution case the delivery of possession of the mortgaged-property was to be effected. At this stage, the appellant before this Court preferred the Miscellaneous Case No. 15/90 under Order XXI, Rule 58 C.P.C. After hearing both the parties the sub-Judge-IV, Gopalganj, allowed this application. However, the appellate Court set aside the judgment of the Sub-judge on the ground that the application under Order XXI, Rule 58 was not maintainable because it was not a case of attachment of any property. Order XXI, Rule 99 was also not applicable because when the application was filed no delivery of possession was effected and the applicant (appellant here) was not dispossed of the property by the decree-holder. So, the only option before the applicant (appellant here) and the appellant in the lower appellate Court also was to file a suit or an application under Order XXI, Rule 99 C.P.C. after she was dispossed. 4. Order XXI, Rule 58 is applicable when any property is attached and the person whose interest is attached is not liable to be affected by the decree, in question, in execution of which the attachment is made. In the instant case, there was no question of any attachment because the mortgaged property was to be delivered to the mortgagor under the decree. In the instant case, there was no question of any attachment because the mortgaged property was to be delivered to the mortgagor under the decree. So far the application under Order XXI, Rule 99 was concerned, when the application under Order XXI, Rule 58 read with section 151 C.P.C. was filed the appellant before this Court was not dispossessed from her property which she was claiming. So, the appellante Court rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Sub-Judge. It was submitted further by the appllant's lawyer that the mortgagage created by the father of respondents-1st set in favour of the respondents-2nd set did not cover the entire property of morgage because some portion of the same was encumbered by another mortgage in favour of the father of the appellant. Since that mortgage was not redeemed there was a suit for foreclosure which was allowed and, hence, the mortgagee's title was complete and the appellant had a share in that property. So, her share could not be subjected to delivery of possession in favour of the respondents-1st set in the concerned execution of the decreepassed on the mortgaged suit by the respondents-1st set. In this connection, the appellate Court has stated in its impugned order that respondent-1st set were not party to the earlier suit for foreclosure filed by the father of the appellant. Hence, the decree in the foreclosure suit was not binging upon the respondents-1st set. I am of the opinion that the appellate Court was not wrong in its approach. Moreover, the brothers of the appellant were very much party to the mortgage suit, the decree of which was being put to execution and they were there to protect the interest of the appellant in a mortgaged suit. When they raised no objection to the execution of the decree which remained final by litigation upto the Hob'ble High Court and, hence, I am of the opinion that the D.P. in the execution case could not be held up on an objection by the appellant in a petition under Order XXI, Rule 58, even though read with Section 151 C. P. C. When there is a specific provision for any remedy, Section 151 C.P.C. is not applicable and the 1st appellate Court has rightly held so in this connection. 5. 5. As a result of the above discussion, I find that there is no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.