Bona fide purchase of attached property must be tested on evidence before refusing stay of execution proceedings.

Where a claim over attached property is pending, an execution court should not refuse a stay by presuming collusion or lack of locus against a transferee who asserts bona fide purchase with supporting material. The dispute over whether the sale was genuine and whether the attachment claim could be resisted required examination of evidence under the statutory scheme governing claims and objections to attachment, including the attachment communication requirements. The rejection of the stay application was therefore not justified, and the matter required fresh consideration by the court below.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the application for stay of execution proceedings, pending adjudication of the claim petition relating to the attached property, was sustainable.

Analysis: The property had been purchased under a registered sale deed, and the petitioner claimed to be a bona fide purchaser after verification of the Encumbrance Certificate. The challenge raised by the decree-holder that the purchase was collusive and that the transferee had no locus to resist execution required evidence and could not be rejected on mere presumption. The provisions governing claims and objections to attachment require adjudication of such disputes, and the communication requirement regarding attachment to the registering officer was also relevant to the petitioner's contention. In these circumstances, the execution court ought to have examined the material evidence before refusing stay.

Conclusion: The rejection of the stay application was not justified, and the matter required fresh consideration by the court below.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a claim over attached property is pending and the applicant asserts bona fide purchase with supporting material, the court must consider the statutory scheme and the evidence before refusing stay or prejudging the claim.

---