HMT WATCHES LIMITED Vs. INDO SWISS JEWELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order issuing attachment of immovable properties described in the Execution Petition No.60/2013 is called in question in these writ petitions. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of certain sums of money in O.S.No.15652/20003, which came to be decreed on 30.05.2008. The petitioner herein/judgment debtor preferred RFA No.1198/2008, which came to be allowed in part by observing thus: -

(2.) THE decree holder filed Execution Petition No.60/2013 before the Executing Court for executing the decree passed in his favour. In the said execution petition the decree holder pressed for issuance of attachment warrant. However, the judgment debtor did not file objections, despite granting sufficient opportunity; ultimately by the impugned order the attachment order of immovable property came to be passed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the execution petition is filed by the decree holder in order to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.15652/2003 and not the decree passed in RFA No.1198/2008; one of the petitioner s properties situated at Ranibagh in Uttaranchal State is furnished as security during the pendency of the suit by the petitioner; the Executing Court ought to have attached such property, which is furnished as a security and that it is not open for the Executing Court to attach the property which is situated at Tumkur in Karnataka State; the impugned order is passed without notice to the petitioner and without hearing him. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.