RAJIVE BHALLA,J - (1.) CHALLENGE in this revision is, to an order dated 20.3.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala and order dated 15.6.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Barnala.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's brother Mohinder Kapil is the judgement-debtor. The petitioner's property,namely his machinery was attached in Execution Application No. 23 of 15.5.2001. The petitioner, therefore, filed objections, to the attachment, raising specific pleas :- that the machinery did not belong to the Judgement-Debtor, the machinery was purchased by the petitioner after raising a loan from the Barnala Primary Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., Barnala and the judgement-debtor had no right, title or interest in the machinery. It is further submitted that despite these detailed objections, the Executing Court, did not grant an opportunity, to adduce evidence. The objections were summarily dismissed. It is further submitted that the trial Court wrongly observed that the petitioner had not brought forth any documentary evidence to establish his exclusive ownership and possession over the machinery. The petitioner had placed on record photocopies of the bills of purchase and documents evidencing a loan from the bank. In case, the learned Executing Court, had granted an opportunity to the petitioner, to establish the veracity of these documents, the petitioner would have established their correctness. The objections filed on 18.3.2006 were dismissed on 20.3.2006. It is further contended that the appellate Court, namely, the Additional District Judge, Barnala, did not examine the matter in detail and by relying upon the affidavit, filed by Mohinder Kapil that he was owner to the extent of 1/2 of the property, dismissed the appeal.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent, on the other hand, states that the respondent is in possession of documents, which would show that Mohinder Kapil is a partner in M/s Kannu Printing Press and, therefore, owner to the extent of 1/2 share of the property, owned by M/s Kannu Printing Press. It is, thus, asserted that the learned Executing Court, rightly dismissed the objections, as they were without merit. As regards the petitioner's submission, with respect to loan and bills of purchase, it is submitted that documents were never placed before the trial Court and no opportunity to lead evidence was ever sought.;