Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) PLEADINGS have been exchanged in this matter. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by an order dated 27.10.1989 passed in an appeal filed by the Petitioner, which has been dismissed.
(3.) THE facts of the case are that a money decree was passed in Original Suit No. 253 of 1973 against the Petitioner and one Anokhey Lal, who was a co -Defendant. The property of Anokhey Lal Defendant judgment debtor was attached under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure;