Question

In execution proceedings governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where property of the judgment-debtor is attached and a third party raises a claim asserting independent title, such claim:

• A. Can be decided only after completion of execution proceedings.
• B. Must be decided by instituting a separate civil suit.
• C. Shall be adjudicated by the executing court.
• D. Requires prior determination by the court which passed the decree.

Hint:

Order XXI CPC is a self-contained code for execution proceedings. Most disputes relating to attached property are decided by the executing court itself.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: When a decree-holder attaches property to satisfy a decree, a stranger to the suit can step in and claim that the property is actually his and not the judgment-debtor's.

Step 2: Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC directs the court that ordered the attachment, the executing court, to investigate this claim itself rather than sending the parties elsewhere.

Step 3: Since the 2002 amendment removed the earlier right to file a fresh suit against the order on such a claim, the executing court's decision is now treated as a decree in itself and can be challenged only by appeal, not a new suit.

Step 4: This keeps the whole dispute, attachment and ownership claim together, inside one proceeding before one court, which rules out waiting for execution to finish, filing a separate suit, or referring the matter back to the decree-passing court.
\[ \boxed{\text{The claim shall be adjudicated by the executing court.}} \]

Answer 2

A useful way to approach this is to ask which forum the Code of Civil Procedure trusts to resolve a dispute over attached property without creating extra rounds of litigation, and then check that against each option.

1. Option A: Waiting until execution proceedings conclude would mean the attached property could already be sold or dealt with by the time the ownership question is resolved, which contradicts the entire purpose of allowing a claim petition at the attachment stage. Order XXI Rule 58 exists precisely to settle the question before the property changes hands, so this timing is wrong.
2. Option B: A separate suit duplicates effort, since the executing court has already seen the attachment, the parties, and the underlying decree. Requiring an entirely new suit would multiply litigation, something the 2002 amendment to Rule 58 was designed to prevent by making the executing court's order final and appealable.
3. Option C: The executing court is best placed to decide the claim because it is already handling the attachment and can call for evidence of title without starting a fresh case from scratch, and this is exactly what Rule 58 assigns to it.
4. Option D: There is no requirement that the court which originally passed the decree must first rule on a claim over attached property; execution and the questions arising from it, including third-party claims, are matters for the executing court under Section 47, regardless of which court passed the original decree.

Efficiency, avoidance of duplicate proceedings, and the statutory language of Rule 58 all point the same way, toward the executing court deciding the claim itself.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C: Shall be adjudicated by the executing court.