JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 19.11.2008, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in C.M.A. No.1-10 of 2017, titled as Bishambhari Devi Versus Joginder Pal & others, vide which the application filed by the present petitioners under Order 21, Rule 32 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for release of their property, which was ordered to be attached by the Court on the plea that no application for sale of the same was filed within the statutory period by the Decree Holder before the learned Executing Court, stands dismissed by the learned Executing Court, by holding that there was an application duly filed by the Decree Holder and that too, within the statutory period. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record as also the impugned order. 3. A perusal of the order, which is under challenge, demonstrates that pursuant to the order of attachment passed by the learned Executing Court dated 1.9.2016, application was filed for the sale of the said property by the Decree Holder within six months, on 27.2.2017, which is duly registered as application No.2-10/2017. That being the factual position, there is no perversity with the impugned order because when there already was an application filed by the Decree Holder, for sale of the attached property within the statutory period, but obvious, the learned Executing Court was bound to dismiss the application so filed by the present petitioners, under Order 21, Rule 32 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. In view of the above discussion, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly, dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.