Manju Verma vs Sh. Harpreet Singh and Another

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 22.07.2011 vide which the warrants of attachment had been ordered against the immoveable assets of judgment debtors No. 4 & 5 in terms of decree dated 27.11.2006. This was in Suit No. 40/2004 titled as Harpreet Singh v. Baldev Raj Bhatia. It is not in dispute that the decree dated 27.11.2006 had been passed in favour of the decree holder; objections had been filed against this decree by the aforenoted Petitioner i.e. Smt. Manju Verma; the said objections had been dismissed on 04.01.2011; revision petition preferred by the Petitioners in the High Court had also been dismissed on 31.05.2011.

The present petition has now been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The grievance of the Petitioner is that she had filed a separate suit for declaration and permanent injunction which is pending before the District Judge at Rohini Courts; this suit had been filed pursuant to the orders of the High Court dated 14.02.2011 passed in RFA No. 96/2011 which was an appeal against the decree dated 27.11.2006. Further contention being that the High Court on 31.05.2011 had granted interim protection to the Petitioner up to 15.07.2011 from dispossession qua the suit property; contention is that since along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') had been filed before the said Court where his suit is pending, no warrants of attachment order can be passed against her till the disposal of her application under Order 39 of the Code.

Record shows that the suit for declaration has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a relief to the effect that the decree dated 27.11.2006 be declared null and void; admittedly the suit was filed in May, 2011; along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code had also been filed. Record further shows that no order has been passed on this application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code which has been taken up for hearing on the first date of hearing which was in May, 2011. The extract of the order-sheets of 04.07.2011, 25.07.2011 and 20.08.2011 have also been placed on record. On all these dates, it has been noted that no interim protection had been granted to the Plaintiff on his application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code; no statement of the Plaintiff that he is pressing his prayer under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code has also been noted. In fact an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had been filed by the Defendant after filing of his written statement on which arguments have been heard and the matter had been fixed for orders. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had preferred another CM(M) No. 983/2011 impugning this order dated 20.08.2011 by which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had been reserved for orders; this petition had been disposed of on 25.08.2011.

The background of the case as emanating from the record thus shows that the decree against the judgment debtor has now become final; objections have been dismissed right up to the High Court; his plea that warrants of attachment order against his property should be stayed merits no consideration; submission that a suit has admittedly been filed by him seeking a declaration that decree dated 27.11.2006 be declared null and void on which no interim order has been passed; record further shows that in fact the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code was probably not pressed and that is why it does not find mention in the order-sheets of 04.07.2011, 25.07.2011 and 20.08.2011. Petition is without any merit.

Dismissed.