In a civil revision, the High Court held that goods attached under a different decree could not be released in current execution proceedings. The petitioner was directed to approach the court handling the attached goods for redressal before being disposed of order.
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.
CR No.5096 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.5096 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 05, 2012
Sumit Verma legal heir of Lata Verma
.... Petitioner
Versus
Raj Paul Gulati & another
.... Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. C. B. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Sumit Verma has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 11.03.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon thereby dismissing petitioner's application Annexure P-2 for release of goods.
Suit filed by respondents against petitioner's mother Lata Verma, since deceased, was decreed for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to deliver the possession of the disputed premises to the respondents herein (decree holders) along with some furniture mentioned in the decree. Respondents filed execution petition for execution of the said decree. In execution petition, possession of the disputed premises was delivered to the decree holders by breaking upon the lock. Goods lying in the premises were handed over to Supurdar Jitender Singh.
Petitioner by moving application Annexure P-2 alleged that the aforesaid goods are self-acquired goods of the petitioner who is although son
CR No.5096 of 2011
-2-
and legal heir of the deceased judgment-debtor. Accordingly the petitioner claiming himself to be owner of the goods, sought release of the said goods to him.
The application was resisted by the decree-holders. They alleged that the goods in question were of the judgment-debtor and not of the petitioner. It was also alleged that in execution of another decree for recovery of decreetal amount of mesne profits, the aforesaid goods have been attached.
Since the goods in question had been attached in execution of another decree, the learned executing Court vide impugned order dismissed the application of the petitioner and also observed that the petitioner had failed to place on record any bill regarding ownership of the goods. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by Sumit Verma
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
case file.
Since the goods in question have been attached in another execution petition, the same could not be released to the petitioner in the instant execution proceedings. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the executing Court in which the goods have been attached, to seek redressal of his grievance in accordance with law.
With observations as aforesaid, the instant revision petition is
disposed off.
(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE
05.01.2012 'raj'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether goods attached in an execution petition for one decree can be released in another execution proceeding.
Whether the petitioner needed to provide proof of ownership to release goods already attached elsewhere.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sumit Verma
Raj Paul Gulati
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
