- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The questions raised in this appeal relate to the interpretation of Order 21 Rules 54, 55 and 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code'). All the provisions relate to the attachment of immovable property in execution of a decree. 2A. The decree, in this case, was passed in favour of the appellants against respondent No. 1 by the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court in England on 29th November 1990 for a sum of US $ 12,48,415,49 (being the equivalent of Rs. 3,60,09,821.01) together with interest @ 15 per cent per annum from the date of the judgment. The decree was put to execution by the appellants by filing an execution application in the original side of the Delhi High Court on 27th November 1991 requiring the attachment of property, being 20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110 001 and also the share holding of the respondent No. 1 in the companies of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein.
(3.) Nobody appeared on behalf of the judgment debtors before the Court when the matter was listed on 4th May, 1994. This was recorded by the Court which accordingly issued warrants of attachment with regard to premises No. 22, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi- 110 001. The matter was made returnable on 31st August 1994. On an application for amendment moved by the appellants, the Court corrected the description of the premises to read as 20, Barakhamba Road, instead of Barakhamba Lane and the returnable date was exended to 3rd January, 1995.;