JUDGMENT : P.K. Patra, J. - This is an application u/s 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") praying for setting aside the order dated 15.12.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 527 of 1995 arising out of Execution Case No. 176 of 1989 by which the objection filed by the opposite party under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC for vacating the attachment order dated 1.3.1990 in respect of a sum of Rs. 3,43,554.00 has been allowed and the attached money has been released. 2. The petitioner filed Money Suit No. 173 of 1985 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,10,809.70 towards outstanding commission charges from the defendants M/s. Mysore Machinery Manufacturer Ltd. and five others including defendant No. 4, the Orissa State Financial Corporation, who was the guarantor for the loanees. The Opposite party, Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (for short "IPICOL"), was also a guarantor for the loanees, but was not impleaded as a defendant in the sujt. The petitioner was the sole selling agent of defendant No. 1 in Orissa for procuring orders for powerlooms and was entitled to get commission at the rate of 12.5 per cent of the basic sale price. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed on 28.4.1989 ex-parte against defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 with costs; against proforma defendant Nos. 5 and 6 without costs; and against defendant No. 4, a co-financier of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 on contest without costs, directing them to pay Rs. 5, 10, 809.70 with pendente lite and future interests at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 3. Pursuant to the decree, defendant No. 4 paid a sum of Rs. 4,12,217.09 to the plaintiff. For the balance decretal dues, the plaintiff levied Execution Case No. 176 of 1989 in which it prayed for attachment of a sum of Rs. 3,43,554,00 from the opposite party who was a co-financier in respect of defendant Nos. 5 and 6, which was allowed by the executing court, but subsequently vacated by the impugned order. 4. Shri D. P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Miss Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party, were heard at length. While Shri Sarangi strenuously urged for setting aside the impugned order, Miss Mohapatra vehemently opposed the same. 5. 5 and 6, which was allowed by the executing court, but subsequently vacated by the impugned order. 4. Shri D. P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Miss Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party, were heard at length. While Shri Sarangi strenuously urged for setting aside the impugned order, Miss Mohapatra vehemently opposed the same. 5. The opposite party had sanctioned two loans to defendant No. 6, Manikeswari Powerlooms Weavers' Cooperative Society, for purchase of powerlooms from defendant No. 1, and after availing of the loan of Rs. 11.99 lakhs on the first occasion and Rs. 21,34,192.00 on the second occasion as also a term loan of Rs. 3.6 lakhs from the opposite party, did not avail of the balance amount of the sanctioned loan and, therefore, the opposite party cancelled the loan as per the terms of agreement between them. The plaintiff alleged that since the opposite party did not pay the balance amount of the sanctioned loan, defendant No. 6 did not clear up the dues of defendant No. 1 from whom machinery had been purchased and, therefore, defendant No. 1 did not pay the commission charges to the plaintiff. 6. Though the plaintiff impleaded defendant No. 4, a co-financier of the defendants who purchased the powerlooms, the opposite party was not impleaded as a defendant in the suit and the order of attachment under Order 21, Rule 52 CPC was obtained from the executing court by misrepresenting facts, as observed by the executing court while vacating the order of attachment of money of the opposite party by the impugned order. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the other co-financier, defendant No. 4, having already paid the decretal dues, the present opposite party, another co-financier is liable to pay the balance decretal dues, cannot be sustained since the present opposite party had not been impleaded as a defendant in the suit and the balance amount of loan not availed of by defendant No. 6 has been duly cancelled by the opposite party. Besides, as per the terms of the agreement between the present petitioner and defendant No. 1, defendant No. 1 was to pay the commission to the petitioner on the sale price of the machineries. The purchasers of the machineries were not liable to pay commission to the petitioner. Besides, as per the terms of the agreement between the present petitioner and defendant No. 1, defendant No. 1 was to pay the commission to the petitioner on the sale price of the machineries. The purchasers of the machineries were not liable to pay commission to the petitioner. Therefore, even if the opposite party did not pay the balance amount of loan to defendant No. 6, it cannot be held liable for non-payment of commission due to the petitioner and properties belonging to the opposite party cannot be attached. By a well discussed order, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has rightly allowed to objection of the opposite party under Order 21, Rule 58 CPC and released the attached money. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed