- (1.) THE matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, having completed all the codal formalities, the suit for recovery filed by petitioner -plaintiff Mahavir Parshad son of Maman Chand (for brevity "the DH") against respondentdefendant Raj Kumar s/o Telu Ram (for short "the JD") was decreed by the trial Court, by means of judgment & decree dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure P5). Consequently, the DH filed the petition for execution of the pointed decree. Since the property of JD was stated to be situated in village Dariyapur, within the jurisdiction of Panipat Courts, so, the executing Court at Safidon has sent the precept u/s 46 CPC (Annexure P1) to the Court at Panipat to attach the property specified therein to execute the decree. The warrants of attachment of the property were received back unexecuted with the report that the JD is not owner and he has already transferred the land to some other third person. Therefore, the Court at Panipat returned the precept to the executing Court at Safidon for further necessary action, by virtue of impugned order Arvind Kumar Sharma dated 25.10.2004.
(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the petitioner -DH has preferred the present revision petition invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel for petitioner -DH that since the JD has transferred his land situated at village Dariyapur, District Panipat to third person to avoid the decree, so, the Court at Panipat should have attached his pointed land, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Smt.Shallo Devi and another v. Mohinder Singh and others, 1971 AIR(P&H) 325are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, the plaintiffs (therein) had filed a collusive suit, in which, the defendants (therein) appeared in the Court on the 2nd day even without issuance of summons, admitted the claim of plaintiffs and suffered a collusive decree. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was observed that the decree is clearly a collusive one and was manoeuvered in order to defeat the rights of creditors. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner -DH in the instant controversy, for the reasons mentioned here -in -below.;