KULWANT KAUR Vs. HAZARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against an order of Shri R. K. SynghaL Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi. By his order dated February 16, 1967, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) During the execution of a money decree obtained by Shri Hazari Lal for his own benefit and the benefit of certain other persons, a bus (No. RJ.A. 643) was attached and its possession was given on Superdari basis to Shri Lal Singh. Later on Shri Lal Singh was required to produce that bus and on his failure to do so another bus (No. DLP-3020), which was alleged to belong to the Superdar, was attached with a view to its being sold. In the meantime Shri Lal Singh died and his widow, Smt. Kulwant Kaur, en September 27, 1966, made obiections to the attachment of bus No. DLP-3020. According to her bus No. DLP-3020 belonged to her and was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree that had been obtained by Shri Hazari Lal.

(3.) The objection petition of Smt. Kulwant Kaur, under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed in default on November 25, 1966. On December 1, 1966 she applied for restoration of the objections by submitting an application which purported to be under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that application it was slated that she had to personally bring her evidence on November 25, 1966 but as she fell ill on that date so she deputed a person to inform her counsel but that person could not contact the counsel and, therefore, no one appeared on her behalf. This application was opposed by the decree holder and on February 16, 1967 was dismissed by the executing court after holding that there was no provision for restoration of objections under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure that may be dismissed in default and that the objector could file a suit under provisions of Order 21 Rule 63 of the said Code. It was also remarked that as the aggrieved party had another remedy the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked. The applic;a,tion for restoration of the objections was, therefore, dismissed.