JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 1. The appellants are Smt. Pulkeria Bhengraj and her husband, Dr. Junul Bhengraj. The appellants were facing trial in R.C. Case No. 35(A)/1996 along with some other cases on the allegation that second appellant, Dr. Junul Bhengraj, as Regional Director of Animal Husbandry Department, defalcated huge amount to the tune of several crores from the Government Exchequer during the period January, 1991 to March, 1996 and acquired moveable and immovable assets in the form of house, plot of land, bank account, cash etc. in his name and in the name of his wife, another appellant. 2. C.B.I. during the course of investigation, found that appellant, Smt. Pulkeria Bhengraj, held immoveable property worth Rs. 5,58,121/- and moveable property worth Rs. 2,96,928.53 in her name and further found that appellant, Smt. Pulkeria Bhengraj, held considerable part of disproportionate assets in her name knowingly that these assets were acquired by her husband, Dr. Junul Bhengraj, through dubious and questionable means. She also allowed purchase of land in fictitious names and signed in fictitious name as Anna Bhengraj and Anna Ordiya and signed blank papers through which huge amount of illegally earned money of her husband were deposited and withdrawn. 3. On the application filed by the C.B.I. an ad interim order of attachment had been passed on 25.2.1997 and subsequently the same was made absolute on 20.1.2000 by the Court below. Claiming that the order dated 20.1.2000 was an ex parte order of attachment, application has been filed by the appellants before the same Court for setting aside ex parte order dated 20.1.2000. This application had been dismissed by the order dated 26.8.2002 in Misc. Case No. 95/2002. Against this order, this appeal has been filed by both the appellants. 4. This appeal has been vehemently-opposed by the counsel for C.B.I. mainly on the ground that earlier ad interim order of attachment had never been challenged and hence the present appeal is not maintainable on the ground that under the provisions of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, right of appeal is available under Section 11 of the Ordinance. As per the said provision, the appeal can be filed under Section 4 or 6 or against any order passed under Section 8 or 9 of the Ordinance. As per the said provision, the appeal can be filed under Section 4 or 6 or against any order passed under Section 8 or 9 of the Ordinance. In the present case, ad interim order of attachment passed under Section 4 of the Ordinance, which was appealable, was admittedly not challenged. But now the order by which the ad interim order of attachment has been made absolute is as per Section 5 of the Ordinance, which is not appealable. 5. This objection, in our view, cannot be said to be unsustainable. Further, the order dated 26.8.2002 would indicate that the application was filed by the appellants before the Court below for setting aside the order dated 20.1.2000, by which the ad interim order of attachment passed under Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, was made absolute, purportedly under Order 21 Rule 106, CPC read with Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. Even though Misc. Case No. 41/97 was filed by the State of Bihar through C.B.I on 13.2.1997 against these appellants for attachment of their properties, the appellants, though had appeared before the Court below, did not choose to file any show cause in the application, which resulted in passing the ad interim order of attachment dated 25.2.1997. Subsequently, they completely absented themselves for several days. Therefore, on the basis of the materials, the Court below passed an order dated 20.1.2000 making the. ad interim order of attachment dated 25.2.1997 absolute. 6. It was contended before the Court below in the application filed on 13.6.2002 to set aside the order dated 20.1.2000 that mistake has been committed due to negligence of their lawyer. 7. The Court below, on perusal of the records in Misc. Petition No. 41/1997 would hold that the opposite party-appellants appeared in Misc. Petition on 3.12.1998, but no show cause was filed and no steps were taken from their side. Ultimately the order was passed on 20.1.2000 making the ad interim order of attachment absolute. After more than two years, i.e. on 13.6.2002, the application has been filed for setting aside the above order. There is no proper explanation given for the negligence. Therefore/the application was rejected by the order dated 26.8.2002. 8. Ultimately the order was passed on 20.1.2000 making the ad interim order of attachment absolute. After more than two years, i.e. on 13.6.2002, the application has been filed for setting aside the above order. There is no proper explanation given for the negligence. Therefore/the application was rejected by the order dated 26.8.2002. 8. In view of the fact that there was no infirmity in the order passed on 26.8.2002 and also in the light of the fact that no appeal was filed against the final order, as correctly pointed out by the counsel for C.B.I, this appeal cannot be sustained. As such, this appeal, being devoid of any merit, is unsustainable in law and is dismissed. Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 9. I agree.