Hon'ble Justice Ghulam Mohammed allowed the Civil Revision Petition. The impugned order rejecting an execution application for simultaneous attachment due to lack of full particulars was set aside.
Impugned order dated 29.04.2011 set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration to the executing Court.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.1983 of 2011
O R D E R:
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2011 passed in E.A.No.45 of 2011 in E.P.No.63 of 2011 in O.S.No.3 of 2011 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.
The petitioner/decree holder filed E.A.No.45 of 2011 under Order 21, Rule 22(2) CPC for issuance of attachment order simultaneously. That application was rejected by the executing Court. The relevant portion is reads as under:
“Heard. The petition does not contain the full particulars to satisfy issue of attachment order simultaneously. Hence rejected”.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material made available on record.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is every possibility of judgment debtor to sell the property if a notice under Order 21 Rule 22 of C.P.C. is issued to delay and to defeat the realisation of the decree and it is difficult to recover the decretal amount and in such circumstances, the opinion of the Court below that the petition does not contain full particulars to satisfy issuance of attachment order simultaneously is incorrect and erroneous.
As seen from the record, the petitioner-decree holder herein filed an affidavit under Section 139 of C.P.C. mentioning all details. Therefore, the executing Court ought to have exercised its discretion and ought not to have rejected the E.A. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 passed in E.A.No.45 of 2011 in E.P.No.63 of 2011 in O.S.No.3 of 2001 is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. The executing Court is directed to dispose of the matter after taking into consideration the details furnished by the petitioner herein in the affidavit.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
Date : 10.06.2011 Note: Issue CC in Three days. (B/o) KA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Civil Revision Petition allowed to set aside rejection of attachment order application.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
GHULAM MOHAMMED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
