Dismissed

G.S.Sangroli v. Roshan Lal Tomar

Himachal Pradesh HC21 May 2013CMPMO/319/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order dismissing a third party's application for attachment before judgment. The court held a defendant lacks locus standi to challenge such an order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dismissing the application for attachment before judgment is dismissed.

G.S.Sangroli Vs Roshan Lal Tomar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No. 319 of 2012.

¶3

Date of decision: 21.5.2013

¶4

G.S.Sangroli

¶5

…..Petitioner Vs.

¶6

Roshan Lal Tomar and another …..Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶10

For the petitioner :

¶11

For the respondents :

¶12

Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate.

¶13

Mr. Lalit Sehgal, Advocate, vice Mr Peeyush Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶14

Ms. Sheetal Kimta, Advocate, vice Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶15

Kuldip Singh, J (Oral)

¶16

This petition under Article 227 of the

¶17

Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 18.5.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Court No.II, Shimla, H.P. in application No. 59-6 of 2012 in main case No. 78-1 of 2009.

¶18

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 has filed a suit for recovery of ` 2,45,000/- against respondent No.1 and petitioner has also been impleaded as defendant in the suit being surety of respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 moved an application

¶19

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶20

…2…

¶21

under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for attachment before judgment which application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 18.5.2012.

¶22

It has been fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was defendant, therefore, he could not move an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for attachment before judgment against respondent No.1. But learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since respondent No.2 had moved the application at the instance of petitioner under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, therefore, the petitioner has every right to challenge the order dated 18.5.2012 which is erroneous.

¶23

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is noted only to be rejected on the simple ground that petitioner being defendant in the suit could not move the application for attachment before judgment. He has no right to move the application of the nature filed by respondent No.2 on which order dated 18.5.2012 has been passed by the learned trial Court. This being the position, the petitioner has no right to challenge the impugned order dated 18.5.2012. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

( Kuldip Singh), Judge

¶25

May 21, 2013 ( GR)

¶26

…3…

G.S.Sangroli v. Roshan Lal Tomar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.S.Sangroli v. Roshan Lal Tomar

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

Shariff Mohd. Vs Nikka Ram

Sant Ram Vs Manoj Kumar

Basant Singh Rathaur Vs Hp Housing Urban Dev .Authority

Sumna Devi Vs Dhanu

Sher Singh Vs State

Brij Bala Vs Roop Singh Mehta