MITAL, CJ. - (1.) M/s. Atul Enterprises filed a suit against Pukh Raj for recovery of Rs. 57,360/- towards the remaining price of the cloth supplied. An application under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Order 39 and Section 151 CPC was filed on which the trial court attached before judgment plot No. E-54, Ist phase, Industrial Area, Balotra. When Nemi Chand, brother of Pukh Raj came to know of the order of attachment, he filed an application before the trial court for cancelling the order on the ground that Pukh Raj had no concern with that plot and it belonged to him. The trial court dismissed this application with the observations that no such application was maintainable. This is revision by Nemi Chand against that order.
(2.) ON a consideration of the matter, I am of the view that opportunity had to be granted to Nemi Chand to show that Pukh Raj had no concern with the attached property and if Nemi Chand was successful, it was the duty of the trial court to lift the attachment and if Nemi Chand failed to prove that, the order of attachment would have continued. So far as the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the application of Nemi Chand is concerned, every court has inherent jurisdiction in the interest of justice to pass an order at least under section 151 C. P. C. , if no other provision is available. If trial court had jurisdiction to attach property of a stranger to the suit, it has equal jurisdiction to entertain the application of that stranger and decide whether the claim of the stranger is right or wrong. I am only giving a word of caution because this matter has not been debated at length. If prima facie court finds the facts one way or the other on that basis, interim order may be passed leaving the aggrieved party to have his title/claim established in a regular suit. In view of the above, the order of trial court dated 11. 5. 90 is set-aside and the trial court is directed to decide the application filed by Nemi Chand in accordance with law under his inherent jurisdiction keeping in view the observations made in this order and the decision be taken with expedition. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 14. 11. 1994.
(3.) THE revision petition is disposed of as aforesaid. .;