This single-paragraph appeal dismissed an application. After security directed by the court to furnish was not provided, the bench held service sufficient and ordered attachment of the property.
Order of attachment against the first and second respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Application No.176 of 2019
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
This Court, upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant,
vide order dated 11.06.2019, directed the respondents to furnish security to the extent of the claim made in the application being an amount of Rs.3,15,734/-, on or before 09.07.2019, failing which, an order of attachment order would be passed.
security ordered by this Court returned with an endorsement "Address Left without instructions" and notice sent to the second respondent has been duly served and affidavit of service is also filed to that effect.
2
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
vv
Though the name of the respondents is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for them either in person or through counsel. Hence, service to the respondents is held sufficient. In the above circumstances, there shall be an order of attachment as prayed for. The order of attachment shall be transmitted through the District Court, Chitoor and the attachment order may be hand delivered to the applicant for transmission.
09.07.2019
vv
Application No.176 of 2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an attachment order should be passed when security directed by the court was not furnished by the respondents.
Pushpa Sathanarayana, J.
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Pushpa Sathanarayana, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
