- (1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he had filed a suit for recovery of certain amount. The suit was proceeded with. However, an application under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the CPC was filed praying therein that the respondents are going to sell the property and, therefore, to protect the amount, some security should be asked for from the respondents or the guarantor should be called in order to satisfy the decree if at all passed later in favour of the petitioner. Upon the said application the Court fixed 6.10.2008 for the respondents to appear. On the said date the respondents appeared but did not furnish any security or guarantee for the amount that was being sought to be recovered. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved an application stating that since no guarantee or security has been paid by the respondents, the property of the respondents be attached. It is submitted that prior to the filing of the aforesaid application on 6.1.2009 the respondents had already sold part of the property on 10.11.2008 which necessitated the moving of the aforesaid application. On the aforesaid application the Court below passed an order of attachment on 30.8.2011.
(2.) Against the aforesaid order of attachment the respondent No. 2, who is the subsequent purchaser of the property, filed revision before the revisional Court and the revisional Court has stayed the order of attachment.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent purchaser has no right to file revision and further the stay of the order of attachment would mean that the respondents would be free to further sell of property thereby the decree, if any, passed could never be satisfied. The aforesaid objection was not considered by the Court below and has granted complete freedom to the respondents to further sell the suit property.;