- (1.) V. K. Chaturvedi, J. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 20-10-2000 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Hamirpur in criminal case No. 169/11/99, Ranno Devi v. Satya Narain (son of the revisionist), in a proceedings under Sec tion 125 Crpc, whereby joint property of the revisionist was recorded to be at tached.
(2.) IT has been argued by Mr. S. Dwivedi learned Counsel for the revisionist that property of the revisionist has wrongly been adduced to be attached because son of the revisionist has no con cern with the property and without giving any notice or summon the impugned order has been passed. As per certified copy of the order sheet of the trial Court dated 22-9-2000 and 29-9-2000, Satya Narain who is a party lo the proceedings under Section 125, Crpc and who happens to be the son of the revisionist is absconding and a warrant of recovery has been issued against him. Police has reported to the Court con cerned that son of the revisionist has left his house and he has no property. But after the said police report the daughter- in-law of the revisionist Le. wife of Satya Narain namely Ranno Devi filed an application alongwith affidavit and revenue records stating therein that property of the revisionist is a joint property with his son-Satya Narain and after being satisfied by perusal of the revenue records the order impugned has been passed. After hearing learned Counsel for the revisionist and the facts as enumerated above in the opinion of this Court the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
(3.) THE revision is accordingly dis missed. However it will be open for the revisionist to file objection before the Court concerned and if any such objection is filed the Court concerned shall decide the same on merits without being in fluenced by any observation made in this order. Revision dismissed. .;