Judgment :- Heard Sri. J. Prabhakar, the learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri Venu, the learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents. 2. In the light of the view expressed by the Division Bench in Union Bank of India v. M/s. Andhra Technocrat Industries AIR 1992 A.P. 408, office objection was over-ruled on 04-02-2005 and the Registry was directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order. Interim suspension was granted on 17-02-2005 on condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the interim suspension was made absolute on 4-3-2005 since the conditional order had been complied with. 3. Sri. J. Prabhakar, the learned counsel representing the appellant had drawn the attention of this Court or Order 38 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred as “the code” for the purpose of convenience), and further had drawn the attention of this Court to Order 21 Rule 46-A of the Code and would maintain that instead of deciding the question in controversy, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally totally erred in observing that these aspects also can be decided at the time of disposal of the suit. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that defendants 4 and 5 in the suit filed I.A. No. 364 of 2004 in O.S. No. 66 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally for deletion of their names and the said application was allowed without costs and the same had been challenged by way of C.R.P. No. 1084 of 2005 before this Court and the same was also dismissed. At any rate, the learned counsel would maintain that even if the reasons recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally to be taken into consideration especially, in the light of the subsequent events, it is a fit matter to be remitted again to the learned Judge to decide the question involved after hearing both the parties instead of postponing such a decision to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. 4. Sri Venu, the learned counsel representing Sri. 4. Sri Venu, the learned counsel representing Sri. K. Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for contesting respondents would submit that in the light of the elaborate convincing reasons, which had been recorded by the learned Judge, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with and, hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is to be dismissed. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 herein/petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application I.A.No. 369 of 2003 in O.S. No. 66 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 94 (e) of the Code praying for an order of attachment before judgment against an amount of Rs. 6,80,000/- and the accrued interest lying with respondent No. 3-defendant No. 3, the garnishee and consequently, pass necessary directions to respondent No. 3-defendant No. 3 not to disburse the amounts/credits in favour of respondents 1 and 2. 6. The brief averments made in the said I.A. No. 369 of 2003 in O.S. No. 66 of 2003 are hereunder:- “That the petitioner filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,75,207/- against respondents 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1, who worked as Clerk-Cum-cashier in Andhra Bank, Kallur Branch, the petitioner is a Saving Bank Account holder in that branch, out of acquaintance with the petitioner, respondent No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on three occasions from petitioner No. 1 by executing promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 21% p.a. Further, in the month of January, 2003, the 1st respondent was transferred to Vaakadu of Nelluru District, knowing the same, the petitioner demanded the 1st respondent for repayment of debt. The 1st respondent came to the petitioner and stated that he is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 6,15,000/- and advised him to open account in the said bank, the petitioner opened the account in the name of his wife, the 2nd petitioner vide account bearing No. A.B.G. 817, the respondent No. 1 mis-represented that he deposited Rs. 6,15,000/- towards discharge of the debt, in the same account. On the next day the petitioner noticed that respondent No. 1 deceitfully made entry for Rs. 6,15,000/- towards discharge of the debt, in the same account. On the next day the petitioner noticed that respondent No. 1 deceitfully made entry for Rs. 6,13,000/- in the above account opened in the name of petitioner No. 2, immediately, he alerted the Andhra Bank authorities about the fraud played by the 1st respondent, that knowing the same, the respondents No. 1 and 2 approached him along with elders and requested him to clear the debt within two or three months, that even after lapse of more than three months, respondents 1 and 2 failed to fulfill their promise, thereby he approached the garnishees/respondents No.3 to 5 and requested not release the amounts, as the due amount from the respondent to him, is secured out of the deposits lying with them.” 7. Respondents 1 and 2 had not chosen to file counter. 8. Respondent No. 3 filed counter denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application. It was averred in the counter that the firm had already paid the principal amounts lying with them to the second respondent, who is the wife of the first respondent towards the letters executed by their firm dated 07.02.2002, dated 21.06.2002 but she had not returned the letters to their firm stating that she lost the letters executed by their firm, for which, they have obtained a receipt for the payment, and the second respondent assured them to return the letters as and when traced out, and they have to pay the interest to her as and when she returned the letters to them. 9. Respondent No.4 filed counter with the following averments:- “That their firm had already paid the principle amounts lying with them to the second respondent on 20.12.2002 towards the pro-note executed by him in favour of the second respondent dated 01.06.2002, but she had not returned the letters to their firm, stating that she lost the letters executed by their firm. For which they have obtained a receipt for the payment and the second respondent assured them to return the letters as and when traced out, and they have to pay the interest to her as and when she returned the letters to them.” 10. Respondent No. 5 also filed counter with almost similar averments. 11. For which they have obtained a receipt for the payment and the second respondent assured them to return the letters as and when traced out, and they have to pay the interest to her as and when she returned the letters to them.” 10. Respondent No. 5 also filed counter with almost similar averments. 11. The learned Judge having formulated the point for consideration at paragraph 13,recorded reasons in detail and made certain observations at paragraph 18 in particular and came to the conclusion that all these aspects are to be decided after full trial in the main suit and hence, allowed the application making interim attachment order already passed as absolute. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A. had been filed by respondent No. 3 defendant No. 3. 12. Order 38 Rule 8 of the Code dealing with adjudication of claim to property attached before judgment specifies as hereunder “Where any claim is preferred to property attached before judgment, such claim shall be adjudicated upon in the manner hereinabove provided for the adjudication of claims to property attached in execution of a decree for the payment of money.” 13. Order 38 Rule 11-A of the Code dealing with provisions applicable to attachment specifies as hereunder:- (1) The provisions of this Code applicable to an attachment made in execution of a decree shall, so far as may be, apply to an attachment made before judgment which continues after the judgment by virtue of the provisions of rule 11. (2) An attachment made before judgment in a suit which is dismissed for default shall not become revived merely by reason of the fact that the order for the dismissal of the suit for default has been set aside and the suit has been restored. 14. Order 21 Rule 46-A dealing with notice to garnishee reads as hereunder:- “46-A Notice to Garnishee:-The Court may in the case of a debt (other than a debt secured by a mortgage or a charge) which has been attached under rule 46, upon the application of the attaching creditor, issue notice to the garnishee liable to pay such debt, calling upon him either to pay into Court the debt due from him to the judgment-debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree and costs of execution, or to appear and show cause why he should not do so.” 15. Order 21 Rule 46B deals with order against garnishee. Likewise, order 21 Rule 46C of the Code deals with trial of disputed questions. Likewise, Order 21 Rule 46D of the Code deals with procedure where debt belongs to third person. Order 21 Rule 46E of the Code deals with order as regards third person. Likewise, Order 21 Rule 46F of the Code deals with payment by garnishee to be valid discharge, Likewise, Order 21 Rule 46G of the Code deals with costs. Order 21 Rule 46H of the Code deals with appeals. Likewise, order 21 Rule 46-I of the Code deals with application to negotiable instruments. 16. In the light of the provisions aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that postponement of the question to be decided on the ground that the said question also may be decided at the time of disposal of the suit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may not be sustainable. Further, the subsequent event of the deletion of names of certain defendants also had been brought to the notice of this Court. 17. In the light of the same, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally to hear both the parties and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 18. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellant, is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in pursuance of the order made by this Court. No order as to costs.