BAIJNATH MAHABIR PRASAD Vs. CENTRAL CONSUMERS CO OPERATIVE STORES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the plaintiff firm and it is directed against an order dated the 4th August 1971, by which the trial Court had rejected the plaintiffs petition filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff had alleged, that, the defendant had taken five godowns of the plaintiffs on rent, for running its business and a sum of Rs. 18,200 was still due from the defendant as arrears of rent, which the defendant was not paying in spite of repeated demands. The plaintiff filed an application in the suit for an order of attachment before judgment, on the allegation, that, the Co-operative Store Was trying to dispose of the whole of its stock in trade, in order to obstruct the execution of the decree which may be passed in the plaintiff's favour. On hearing the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, the learned trial judge has stated, that, from the mere fact that the defendant Was selling its stock in trade, it could not be inferred that it was being sold with the intention of obstructing or delaying the realisation of the decree which may be passed in the suit, in favour of the plaintiff. According to the learned judge, the selling of stock in trade was the defendant's normal business. The learned judge has held clearly, that, he was not satisfied that the defendant Was disposing of the stock in trade, mentioned in the plaintiff's petition, with the intention to delay or obstruct the execution of the decree, if any, which may be passed in plaintiff's favour.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that the entire approach of the learned Subordinate Judge to the questions agitated before him was erroneous. It is contended, that, according to the plaintiff, a large amount of money was due from the defendant and that if the defendant can sell away all its stock in trade, before the suit is decided, it may not be possible for the plaintiff to realise its decree, when passed. In my opinion, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not Valid at this stage, in this civil revisional application. No question of jurisdiction arises at all. THE learned trial judge has heard both the parties on all the points raised before him and he has come to his clear and precise finding, to which reference has been made above. In such circumstances, it is not possible to interfere in this Court's revisional jurisdiction. THE application is, therefore, dismissed, but there will be no order for costs.