Allowed

Bura Padmaja v. Kongara Bhasakara Rao

Telangana HC25 Nov 2011CRP/4891/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment reviews an interim attachment order made absolute by a trial court under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC without recording reasons. The High Court held the order unsustainable due to lack of procedural compliance and reasoned findings, remitting the matter for appropriate orders after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to trial court for appropriate orders after hearing both sides.

Bura Padmaja Vs Kongara Bhasakara Rao — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT::

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶5

C.R.P.No.4891 OF 2011

Between:

Bura Padmaja

…Petitioner

A n d

Kongara Bhaskara Rao and two others

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶13

C.R.P.No.4891 OF 2011

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶16

2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.08.2011 in I.A.No.631 of 2010 in O.S.No.89 of 2010, on the file of the V-Additional District Judge, Karimanagar, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein, the plaintiff, under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC for attachment before judgment, was allowed, by a cryptic order as follows:-

¶17

“This petition is allowed. Interim attachment is made absolute”.

¶18

3. It is stated that the 1^st respondent filed the suit for

¶19

recovery

¶20

of Rs.19,25,000/- against the petitioners/defendants and sought attachment before judgment of the immoveable properties of the defendants. A n ex parte interim attachment was ordered on 07.12.2010. Later, the petitioners/defendants entered appearance on 18.01.2011 and the matter was coming up for filing counter by the petitioners/ defendants. On 16.08.2011, the matter stood posted for filing counters of R-1 and R-2, as seen from the copy of the docket proceedings filed by the petitioner herein. On that day, the trial Court passed the impugned one line order stating that petition is allowed and interim attachment

¶21

is made absolute. The order is not supported by any reasons.

¶22

The procedure prescribed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC does not appear to have been followed. There is no satisfaction recorded by the Court as to the existence of the circumstances that enabled the plaintiff to seek attachment before judgment of the properties of the defendants.

¶23

The impugned order, which is totally bereft of any reasons, is simply

¶24

non est in the eye of law. Such an order does not answer the description of a judicial order as it does not reflect the judicious application of mind while passing the same.

¶25

4. In the circumstances, the impugned order is held wholly unsustainable and the same is accordingly set

¶26

aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court for giving an opportunity to the defendants to file their counter and then pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides and in accordance with law.

¶27

5. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

_____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶29

25^th November, 2011 Lrkm.

Bura Padmaja v. Kongara Bhasakara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bura Padmaja v. Kongara Bhasakara Rao

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

Y. Mohan Reddy Vs The State of A.P. rep. its Public Prosecutor

Mohd. Afzal Vs The State of A.P.

Madan Chand Darda, Vs The State of A.P.

Mohd Rafi Khan , Mohdd Ayub Khan Vs U.Vasundhara

G.Rama Rao, Vs G.Nagender Rao

Bandi Sudhakar Reddy Vs Sree Mahaveer Real Estates, Nellore