Decided on July 25,1949

NANDLAL Appellant
Keshrimal And Anr. Respondents


Rege, J. - (1.)IN a suit for arrears of rent due from the Petitioner,' the Plaintiff Keshrimal applied for an order of attachment of the Defendants' property before judgment on an affidavit that the Defendants had disposed of some movable property and had left the jurisdiction of the Court after putting a look on the house. The learned munsif ordered a notice to issue and a simultaneous warrant of attachment. The Defendants were absent as averred in the affidavit and the notice was affixed on the house. On the same day, on an application to that end, an order was made to break open the lock for effecting attachment and the property was attached. Warrant of attachment P. 10, is in the form prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure. Appendix F, Form 7 i.e. for attachment after notice being served. The Defendants were asked by the notice P. 11, to appear on 1st February 1919 to show cause against the attachment being made absolute, ΒΌ tIrh fLFkj D;ksa u dh tk; 1/2. They, however, appeared on 7th January 1949 and offered to deposit the amount claimed with costs reserving to themselves the right to take action in respect of the attachment; and have now come up for revision of the order of attachment.
(2.)THE question of the propriety of this order after the deposit of money in Court is purely academicals but has to be briefly considered to determine the allocation of costs of this petition, which, it is conceded, is competent.
Attachment of property is a serious proceeding and Courts ought to be careful not to lend themselves as tools of oppression. The order in this case appears to have been precipitate. The affidavit vaguely states that the Defendants had sold some movable property and had taken some outside the jurisdiction of the Court. It would have been more proper for the Court to demand particulars before passing an ex -parte order and giving immediate effect to it. The more so because the property in the house was alleged to be furniture which could not be removed without its being noticed. The warrant of attachment too, is not in proper form and the Petitioner had good cause prima facie to come up in revision.

(3.)THERE is no point in setting aside the order of attachment, and the case is disposed off with these observations, but I would in the circumstances direct the opponent to pay costs of this, petition. Pleader's fee Rs. 10.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.