Partly allowed

Harvinder Singh v. Avtar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Nov 2010CR/4776/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought modification of an order attaching their immovable property before judgment in a suit for recovery. The Court allowed the application, restricting the attachment to 08 kanals as the market value of this portion was more than sufficient to satisfy the security amount. The trial court was directed to release any remaining attached land.

What did the court decide?

Modified the order dated 19.01.2010 to restrict attachment before judgment to 08 kanals of land and directed the trial court to release the remaining attached property.

Harvinder Singh Vs Avtar Singh — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

In C. R. No. 4776 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. M. Nos. 17927-28-C-II of 2010 In C. R. No. 4776 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision : November 08, 2010

¶6

Harvinder Singh and others

¶7

.... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Avtar Singh and others .... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr. M. S. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant-petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for non-applicant – respondent no.1.

¶14

¶15

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶16

C. M. No. 17927-C-II of 2010 :

¶17

Allowed as prayed for.

¶18

C. M. No. 17928-C-II of 2010 :

¶19

This is application by petitioners for modification of order dated 19.01.2010, whereby C. R. No. 4776 of 2009 filed by the applicantpetitioners was disposed of directing attachment before judgment, of immovable property of the petitioners.

¶20

In C. R. No. 4776 of 2009

¶21

¶22

Suit has been filed by respondent no.1 against Harnek Singh (since deceased and represented by petitioners and respondents no.2 to 4) for recovery of ₹ 3,42,750/-. The suit has been filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC). On application moved by defendants i.e. petitioners and proforma respondents no.2 to 4, the trial court, vide impugned order dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure P-3), granted leave to the defendants to defend the suit, subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/-. In the revision petition, vide order dated 19.01.2010, this Court directed attachment before judgment, of immovable property of the petitioners.

¶23

In the instant application, the petitioners have alleged that they are owners of 28 kanals of land and even 04 kanals of land can satisfy the decree as security amount was ₹ 5,00,000/- only, as directed by the trial court. The petitioners have prayed that attachment before judgment be restricted to 08 kanals of land instead of attaching their entire land.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners contended that the trial court had directed the defendants to furnish the security in the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- only. It was contended that as per verification report made by Patwari Halqa, market value of the land of the petitioners is ₹ 17,00,000/per acre, and therefore, even attachment of one acre of land would be more

¶26

In C. R. No. 4776 of 2009

¶27

¶28

than sufficient to satisfy the decree.

¶29

Learned counsel for respondent no.1 could not advance any meaningful argument to controvert the aforesaid submission of counsel for the applicant-petitioners.

¶30

As noticed herein above, as per report of Patwari Halqa, market value of the land of the petitioners is ₹ 17,00,000/- per acre. Suit filed by respondent no.1 is for recovery of ₹ 3,42,750/-. The trial court directed the defendants to furnish security in the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- only. Consequently, attachment before judgment, of one acre land only valuing ₹ 17,00,000/- would be more than sufficient to satisfy the decree that may be passed in favour of plaintiff-respondent no.1.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is allowed and order dated 19.01.2010 passed by this Court in C. R. No. 4776 of 2009 is modified and trial court is directed to restrict attachment before judgment of property of petitioners and respondents no.2 to 4 to the extent of 08 kanals only and the remaining land, if attached, be released therefrom.

¶32

November 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE

Harvinder Singh v. Avtar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harvinder Singh v. Avtar Singh

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

Northern Regional Committee Nation Council Vs Rksd College of Education,Ambala Road Kaithal

Harbhajan Singh @ Midha @ Chhinda & Another Vs State of Punjab & Others

Rajinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sukhwant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sunita & Anor. Vs Pyare Lal & Ors.

Jeet Singh & Ors. Lrs of Kaka Singh Vs Maya