1. The revision petitioner is the petitioner herein. He has prayed for the review of the order dated 13th December, 1988 dismissing the C.R.P.

2. Facts relevant and requisite to consider the questions involved in the case lie in a narrow compass. The first respondent-State Bank of India obtained a decree against the second respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-. To execute the decree the bank filed E.P. 177/86. The Bank immediately thereafter filed E.A. 165/87, impleading not only the judgment debtor but also the petitioner herein and the third respondent

Corporation Bank as respondents, under 0.21 R.43 and 46 C.P.C. and sought for an order prohibiting the third respondent from giving away the amount of Rs. 10,858.70 ps. credited in the account of the second respondent. It is relevant in this context to bear in mind the specific case of the Bank that this amount of Rs. 10,858.70 ps. forms part of the amounts misappropriated by the judgment debtor the second respondent from the Bank and hence the bank is entitled to recover it whether it is in the custody of the second respondent or in the custody of any other person. The petitioner, according to the Bank, in only a name lender.

3. I shall in this connection refer to the following excerpt from the order under attack as it highlights those aspects which weighed with the court below in passing the order under challenge:

"... The decree holder Bank obtained a decree for recovery of the amounts misappropriated by the judgment debtor from the decree holder Bank by forging documents and falsifying accounts while be was working in the Bank as a Clerk-cum-Cashier. Under the decree the Bank is entitled to realise a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the judgment debtor. One such misappropriation was made by the judgment debtor (second respondent herein) on 27-5-82 by forging a bankers cheque for a sum of S.10,858.70P in favour of the 3rd respondent in this petition who is his brother-in-law. The C.B.I. charge sheeted the judgment debtor for offences of criminal breach of trust, forgery and falsification of accounts. The judgment debtor pleaded guilty to the charge and he was convicted by the special court. During the course of investigation, the C.B.I. freezed the account of the 3rd respondent in relation to the sum of Rs. 10,858.70P misappropriated by the judgment debtor. The 3rd respondent is only a namelender for the judgment debtor in respect of this amount. In fact, the 3rd judgment debtor was an abettor of the offence committed by the judgment debtor. 3rd. respondent has no manner of right in this amount misappropriated by the judgment debtor from the decree holder bank..." (emphasis supplied)

It is relevant in this context to note that the petitioner has no case that this amount represents his savings from his profession. He has also no case that this represents income from his properties. On the other hand it is the common case of the parties that the amount represents the amount covered by the forged cheque (mentioned in the above extract), given to the Corporation Bank for collection. The amount however, has been collected through the account of the petitioner. It is thus clear that the petitioner cannot have any legal claim over this amount. It is also interesting to note that the petitioner has no case that at the time when the judgment debtor gave this cheque to him, the judgment debtor owed any money to him and it is towards the said debt this amount was paid.

4. Taking these aspects into account the court below, by the order under challenge in the C.R.P., has directed the Corporation Bank to pay the amount to the decree-holder.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the amount in dispute is not money owed by the petitioner to the judgment debtor and hence the same is not a debt within the meaning of 0.21 R.46. In order to opine that a particular transaction reflects a debt, it must be established that there is the relationship of debtor and creditor between the parties. Not only that, the debt must be an existing one and not one which may become due in future, the payment of which depends upon some contingencies which may or may not happen. On going through the facts of the case I am inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel that the amount in question does not represent an existing debt due by him to the judgment debtor and as such the order attaching the same is bad.

6. However a question would arise; can this order be sustained under any other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 0.21 R.46 provides for the attachment of not only debt but also a share in the capital of a corporation and other movables not in the possession of the judgment-debtor, except property deposited in, or in the custody of, any court. That means the court has the power to issue an order prohibiting the garnishee from giving to the judgment debtor the share in the capital of a corporation or other movable property belonging to the judgment debtor, in the possession of the garnishee. It no more can be disputed that money is movable property. If that be so, the amount in question, in the custody of the Corporation Bank, can, in my view, be attached in execution of a decree provided it is established that that money belongs to the judgment debtor.

7. The order of attachment in question, therefore, can be sustained under O.21 R.43 and 46(1) provided the conditions stipulated thereunder as also under S.60 C. P. C. are satisfied. The decree-holder therefore shall establish that the judgment debtor at the relevant time has a disposing power over the money in dispute and that he can exercise the said power for his own benefit. The question therefore is, has the judgment debtor the disposing power over the amount in dispute. As already noted this amount represents the money collected by the Corporation Bank on presenting the forged cheque. We have already seen that the petitioner has conceded that this money represents the money covered by the forged cheque. That means the amount in dispute, going by the undisputed facts, belongs to the second respondent-the judgment debtor although the same is seen credited in the account of the petitioner with the Corporation Bank, the garnishee. From the facts found it can be inferred without the fear of contradiction that the petitioner at the relevant time was holding the property only in trust for the judgment debtor or in any event on behalf of the judgment debtor. The ownership of this movable (i. e. the amount in deposit) cannot be said to have been transferred to the petitioner. It still is vested in the judgment debtor. It should in this connection be remembered that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the amount in question is liable to attachment in execution of the decree in terms of S.60 C.P.C. The petitioner under these circumstances can be said to be in custody of this amount for the benefit of the second respondent-the judgment debtor. He has not produced any evidence to show that the money in fact belongs to him. The order under attack therefore can be sustained under 0.21 R.43, 46 (c) (iii) read with S.60 C. P. C.

8. In view of the fact that the enquiry conducted by the court below cannot be brought either under 0.21 R.42 or under R.46B, the order is not an appealable one.

9. In this view of the matter the order dated 13th December, 1988 dismissing the C.R.P. on the ground that it is an appealable order, is cancelled. In the light of the discussion above the C. R. P. nonetheless is liable to be dismissed.

10. The facts discussed above clearly show that the petitioner has been helping the judgment debtor to conceal the money, the judgment debtor misappropriated by using forged bank cheque, from the reach of the decree-holder bank. The petitioner therefore is bound to repay the amount credited in his account with the Corporation Bank to the decree-holder Bank. Yet he resisted the move, the decree-holder bank initiated, to recover the money. The petitioner has been hand and glove with the judgment debtor in resisting every move of the bank to recover the amount. The decree holder bank thus was constrained to initiate and also defend various legal actions incurring heavy loss. This petition therefore is dismissed with compensatory cost which I fix at Rs. 2,500/-. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.