Dismissed

Sou. Meenal Manik Yedur and Anr. v. Sou. Satyamma Krishnahari Singam and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Oct 2021WP/7123/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a trial court's refusal to grant attachment before judgment under CPC under Order 38 Rule 5. Bench held apprehension was absent and request to create a second charge was ultra vires.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; attachment before judgment refused; request to create second charge rejected.

Sou. Meenal Manik Yedur and Anr. Vs Sou. Satyamma… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

JAYARAJAN Digitally signed byJAYARAJAN ANJAKULATHNAIR ANJAKULATH NAIRDate: 2021.10.2814:09:11 +0530

¶2

1/2 21 WP-7123.21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7123 OF 2021

¶5

Meenal Manik Yedur & Anr. .. Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Satyamma Krishnahari Singam & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni for the petitioners.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶10

DATED : 26^TH OCTOBER, 2021.

¶11

P.C:-

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur on 17/02/2021 on an application filed by the plaintiff seeking attachment of property before judgment by invoking Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. It is manifest that the plaintiffs filed the suit against defendants and the property in the schedule is the one which is owned by defendant No.1. An application was moved seeking attachment of the property before judgment in the wake of the notice issued in a daily newspaper and that was pleaded to be the cause for seeking attachment.

¶14

AJN

¶15

2/2 21 WP-7123.21.odt

¶16

The application was opposed by the defendants and the court recorded that the property sought to be attached was brought for sale and even a notice was given but subsequently the transaction was cancelled. The defendants pleaded before the court that the property is already under attachment under the SARFAESI Act at the instance of the Canara Bank. In any case, the property cannot be sold. In the wake of the said statement, the impugned order record that the apprehension expressed by the applicant justifying invocation of power to effect attachment before judgment cannot be exercised.

¶17

I concur with the said finding rendered in the said impugned order. Since the apprehension expressed does not exist, learned Judge was justified in declining the relief claimed. The request made by learned counsel for the petitioners to create a second charge in their favour in the said property is not within the realm of my jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶18

Needless to state that the observations made above are limited to the application, which was decided by the impugned order.

¶19

[SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]

¶20

AJN

Sou. Meenal Manik Yedur and Anr. v. Sou. Satyamma Krishnahari Singam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sou. Meenal Manik Yedur and Anr. v. Sou. Satyamma Krishnahari Singam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Omkar Developers,through Its Partners 1.VISHWASRAO S Patil and Ors. Vs Rakesh Ramesh Miraje

Suresh Vitthal Tadge Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Suresh Sunder Kamble Vs Subhash Sunder Kamble and Ors.

Ashok Choudhary Decd Thru Lhrs Vs Smt. Kashmira Niranjan Petigara and Ors.

Mr. Nitin Ramrao Umale Vs Prakash Shankar Pawar Decd through Lrs

Murlidhar Tilwani Vs Naresh G. Wadhwa and Ors.