Execution precept proceedings allow prima facie ownership scrutiny, while Order 21 Rule 58 remedies remain open for third-party claims.

In execution-related precept proceedings, the Court may act on prima facie satisfaction that the attached property belongs to the judgment-debtor and may examine whether the underlying transaction is a sham intended to defeat the decree. The commentary also recognises that corporate form may be disregarded where facts suggest asset siphoning and substance shows a single economic entity. Separately, a later objection under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC remains available for adjudication of a third-party claim, and earlier observations in precept proceedings do not by themselves foreclose that statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings for issuance of precept under Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court could examine whether the attached goods prima facie belonged to the judgment-debtor and record findings on the nature of the transaction. (ii) Whether the appellant could still pursue an objection under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether the earlier observations foreclosed that remedy.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings for issuance of precept under Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court could examine whether the attached goods prima facie belonged to the judgment-debtor and record findings on the nature of the transaction.

Analysis: The precept procedure was treated as an execution step requiring the Court to be prima facie satisfied that the property sought to be attached belonged to the judgment-debtor. The record showed that the transaction relied upon by the appellant was examined and found to be sham and bogus, entered into to defeat the award-holder's claim. The Court also accepted the reasoning that the corporate structure could be disregarded where the facts disclosed siphoning of assets and a single economic entity in substance.

Conclusion: The finding that the transaction was sham and bogus, and that the property could be treated as belonging to the judgment-debtor for the purpose of precept, was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could still pursue an objection under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether the earlier observations foreclosed that remedy.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between the limited inquiry for issuance of precept and the later adjudication of a third-party claim under Order 21 Rule 58. It noted that the application before the Single Judge was not an Order 21 Rule 58 application and that the Executing Court remained competent to decide a properly filed objection in accordance with law. The observations made earlier were treated as not barring the appellant from availing the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to pursue an objection under Order 21 Rule 58, and that remedy was not foreclosed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not warrant interference and was dismissed, while preserving the appellant's right to proceed with any available objection before the Executing Court in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In execution-related precept proceedings, the Court may act on prima facie satisfaction as to ownership and may disregard a sham device to defeat the decree, while a separate statutory objection under Order 21 Rule 58 remains available for proper adjudication of third-party claims.

---