CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Rakesh Kumar vs State Bank of India

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 8 April 1991 · Citation: (1991) ISJ 522 : (1993) PLJ 478 : (1992) 1 RRR 423

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.C.Garg, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 1890 of 1988
Ask AI about this case

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 · 363 words

G.C. Garg, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1890 and 2378 of 1988 as the question involved in both these petition is the same.

2.

These revision petitions are directed against the order of the executing Court dated 10th May, 1988 whereby the objection petitions filed by the petitioners under the proviso to subrule (1) of Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) were dismissed.

3.

The petitioners had claimed that some properties attached in execution of the decree were owned by them and these were not liable to be attached and soldin execution of the said decree. As already observed, the executing Court without going into the merit of the objection petitions dismissed the same on the ground of being designedly delayed.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that there was no delay on the part of the objectorpetitioners to file the objection petitions. It is not necessary to go into this contention in view of the provisions of subrule (5) of Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code which provides that where a claim or objection is preferred and the Court under provisoto subrule (1) of Rule 58 refuses to entertain it, the party against whom such order is made, may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute and subject to the result of the suit the order refusing to entertain the claim or objection shall be conclusive. In the present case, the expecting Court by order under revision had refused to entertain the objections in exercise of its powers under the proviso to subrule (1) ibid. The petitioners had a right to file a suit to establish that they are the owners of the properties and that the same, was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree.

5.

In this view of the matter, there is no merit in these revision petitions and the same are dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to file a civil suit and claim ownership of the property if so advised. No costs.

Petitions dismissed.