UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. E FARIDUN ABBAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) laintiff filed LA. No. 12778/96allegingthatdefendantNo. 2 died in the month of November, 1995. Plaintiff while inquiring the details of the legal heirs of deceased defendant No. 2 came to know that defendants 1 & 3 are not residing at the given addresses for a long time. Defendant No. 4 was proceeded ex-parte by the order dated September 26,1984. It was also revealed that defendant No. I disposed of the hypothecated goods and the other movable and immovable properties and left the premises of work and residence without prior informing the Plaintiff-Bank.

(2.) It is further alleged that on the last date of hearing i.e. November 19,1996, it was informed thatdefendant No. 1 is in London while defendant No. 3 is in Russia at present. It is stated that with intention to obstruct and delay the execution of the decree which may be passed in the suit against them, defendants 1 & 3 shifted out of India by disposing of their respective properties including the hypothecated goods. It is prayed that the said defendants be arrested forthwith and may be called upon to give security for their appearance for the amount of the decree that maybe passed against them.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 & 3 have contested the application by filing joint reply. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 is presently earning his livelihood in U.K. and visits India off and on. He was present in Court in April, 1995 and February, 1996 when the case was fixed for evidence of parties. It is alleged that the answering defendants have furnished their present addresses. Plaintiff-Bank has not point out which of the movable or immovable assets have been disposed of by the answering defendants. It is denied that the answering defendants shifted out of India by disposing of their respective properties with the intention to obstruct and delay the execution of decree which may be passed in the suit against them.