AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 242 wordsJ.V. Gupta, C.J.
This order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petitions No. 3007 and 3008 of 1988, as the question involved is common in all these petitions.
The petitioner decreeholder sought attachment of the property belonging to the judgmentdebtor. The executing Court refused to issue warrants of attachment on the basis of the report that there was no land in the name of the judgmentdebtor, as alleged by the decree holder. As a result, the decreeholder was directed to file a fresh list of the properties of the judgmentdebtor.
The learned counsel for the decree holder petitioner submitted that the land sought to be attached did belong to the judgment debtor, but in order to defeat the claim of the decree holder the same was transferred by him. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the land should have been attached. If any objections were filed on behalf of any person, the same could be disposed of in accordance with law.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find merit in this revision petition.
The executing Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the executing Court is directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law after notice to the judgment debtor. The parties have been directed to appear before the executing Court on December 14, 1990.