- (1.) BY means of this peti tion, petitioner, has prayed that the op posite parties may be directed not to at tach the personal property of the petitioner and his wife.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel nave been heard. LEARNED Standing Coun sel was given time to seek instructions, but no instructions have been received so far by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the whereabout of his son Rohit Tandon are not known for the last four years. His son has no self-acquired property and the entire property belongs to the petitioner. The scooter is also in the name of the wife of the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the same. It ap pears that a case has been registered against the son of the petitioner under Sections 120-B and 408, IPC at P. S. Hara Street, Calcutta on 4-12-92 and a warrant of arrest has also been issued by the police of Calcutta. How the police is going to attach the properties belonging to the petitioner treating as the property of the son of the petitioner. It is further argued that the petitioner has sent a telegram to C. J. M. Lucknow and to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta and also got published in the newspaper. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties it is directed that the properties belonging to the petitioner or his wife shall not be attached against any Rules issued against Rohit Tandon.
(3.) WITH these observations the writ petition is disposed of finally. Petition disposed of. .;