ORDER : V. CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. Is the order adjudicating a claim preferred to property attached before judgment appealable or only open to challenge in an original petition? The issue comes on an order of reference by the learned single Judge in view of conflicting decisions on the point. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which governs the problem is referred to as the CPC only for the sake of brevity. 2. We heard Mr. K.S. Hariharaputhran, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Kalkura, Advocate for the first respondent and Mr. Abraham George Jacob, Advocate as amicus curiae. 3. The adjudication of claim to property attached before judgment is under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC which is as follows: “8. Adjudication of claim to property attached before judgment - Where any claim is preferred to property attached before judgment, such claim shall be adjudicated upon in the manner hereinbefore provided for the adjudication of claims to property attached in execution of a decree for the payment of money.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. The manner provided for the adjudication of claims to property attached in execution of a decree is explicit from Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. No claim shall be entertained if the property attached has already been sold or the claim was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. 5. All questions arising between the parties or their representatives shall be determined by the court dealing with the claim and not by a separate suit. The court may either allow or disallow the claim or continue the attachment or pass such other order in the circumstances. The order passed thereon shall be subject to the same conditions as to appeal as if it were a decree. That such an order is a deemed decree is explicit from Order XXI Rule 58(4) CPC which is as follows: “(4) Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. An appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals therefrom under Section 96 CPC. The court is only exercising original jurisdiction in lieu of a separate suit which is barred under Order XXI Rule 58(2) CPC. 7. An appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals therefrom under Section 96 CPC. The court is only exercising original jurisdiction in lieu of a separate suit which is barred under Order XXI Rule 58(2) CPC. 7. Thus the manner of adjudication of claims to attachment of property under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC has been incorporated in Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC. The manner is not limited to the original adjudication of the claim but also to the appeal from the order passed thereon. It is beyond any cavil that an appeal is a continuation of the adjudication of the claim to the property attached. Rules 1 to 3 of Order XXI cannot be dissected from Rule 4 of Order XXI as regards the manner of adjudication of claim. The order passed on an adjudication of a claim to property attached before judgment is also appealable. We are in perfect agreement with the decision of Mr. Justice B.M. Thulasidas in Ali vs. Muhammadali, 1995 (2) KLT 225 . 8. Anto Mamkoottam vs. Peruvanthanam Service Co-operative Bank, 1996 (2) KLT 962 (DB) deals with an altogether different question. The issue therein was as to whether an order passed under Order XXI Rule 58(3) is appealable under Section 96 or Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. The decision does not lay down that an appeal would not lie against an order of adjudication under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC. The above decision has been misquoted in ZOP(C) No. 268/2017 to hold that an original petition would lie. The objection raised by the Registry in ZOP(C) No. 268/2017 was so overruled misquoting Anto Mamkoottam's case (supra). We overrule the order in ZOP(C) No. 268/2017 rendered overlooking the binding decision in Ali's case (supra). A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken the same view as regards the maintainability of appeal. It has been held in Gurram Seetharam Reddy vs. Gunti Yashoda and Another, AIR 2005 A.P. 95 as follows: “35. When Section 96, CPC specifically provides for appeals against decrees, and sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of Order 21 directs that the order passed under sub-rule (3) thereof shall have the force of a decree, there hardly exists any basis to deny such characteristics to such an order. When Section 96, CPC specifically provides for appeals against decrees, and sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of Order 21 directs that the order passed under sub-rule (3) thereof shall have the force of a decree, there hardly exists any basis to deny such characteristics to such an order. An interpretation to the contrary would have the effect of settling at naught, the intention of the Parliament in attributing characteristics of a decree to an order. In view of a clear mandate under sub-rule (4) of Rule 58, an order passed under sub-rule (3) thereof, partakes a character of a decree for all practical purposes, more so, in the context of availing the remedy of appeal. Same reasoning holds good for the orders passed under Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21, CPC. Hence, there does not exist any justification to treat the same as different, in any way from decrees, at least in the context of deciding the forum and provision for appeal. The question as to what nomenclature is to be given to the appeals, needs to be dealt with by the High Court or the District Courts, on administrative side.” 9. There is no necessity to re-attach the property in execution in view of Order XXXVIII Rule 11 CPC after the attachment before judgment has been made absolute. 10. We hold that orders on adjudication of claims to property are appealable whether it be attachment before judgment or attachment in execution of a decree. The manner of adjudication under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC has been incorporated in Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC. The adjudication continues till the appeal or second appeal is finally disposed of and is not confined to the first tier. This is particularly so since all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property attached are to be adjudicated. Order XXI Rule 58(2) CPC is worded akin to Section 47 CPC and a separate suit is barred in both cases. The issue referred is answered as above and let the original petition be posted before the learned single Judge as per roster. 11. The arguments of Mr. Abraham George Jacob, Advocate as amicus curiae in the case were quite pleasing which deserve a rich encomium.