NANDLAL Vs. KESHRIMAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(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, ¼ 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.

(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.