(1.) THE petitioner feels aggrieved by the order dated 18-8-2001 passed by the Court-below on I. A. No. IV filed under Or. 21, Rules 58 and 59 CPC for raising the attachment of movables.
(2.) THE respondent-Bank filed the suit O. S. 782/89 against one M/s. Shakti Marine Engineering Works for recovery of Rs. 24,219. 50 with interest and costs. The present petitioner though, had nothing to do with the suit, impleaded himself in the said suit as third defendant. The respondent-Bank on the strength of the hypothecation of the machineries of M/s. Shakti Marine Engineering Works obtained an order of attachment before judgment. On 18-6-1992 the suit came to be decreed. The present petitioner did not take any steps to raise the attachment before judgment of the movables of M/s. Shakti Marine Engineering Works during the pendency of the suit O. S. 782/89. Nor did he question the judgment and decree rendered in O. S. 782/89, in appeal. However, the petitioner filed a suit O. S. 268/1993 for the relief of declaration on the ground that the respondent-bank is not entitled to bring the machinaries for sale on the strength of the decree obtained in O. S. No. 782/89. In O. S. No. 268/1993 the petitioner for the first time took up a stand that the movables did not belong to M/s. Shakti Marine Engineering Works and in fact they belonged to him. It was further alleged by the petitioner that those very goods which are the subject matter of the suit in O. S. No. 782/89 were hypothecated by him to the K. S. F. C. and he as the proprietor of M/s. Karavali Engineering Works is the absolute owner of those movables. This suit filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 5-7-2000. The petitioner did not prosecute the matter further. When the respondent filed the execution petition, the petitioner filed I. A. IV for raising attachment of movables. The Court-below dismissed I. A. No. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in this revision petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.