ARUN ENTERPRISES Vs. EMMANUEL GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND respondent being one of the defendants, it is not necessary to serve notice on him and hence as requested by the learned counsel for petitioners as well, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.

(2.) THOUGH the impugned order falls within Rule 6 of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') which is appealable under Rule 1(q) of Order XLIII of the Code, having heard learned counsel on both sides I am inclined to think that parties need not be be relegated to an appeal and instead, the dispute can be resolved in this original petition itself. Hence I have entertained this original petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners contended that petitioners had produced sufficient documents to show that whatever liability they had towards the first respondent had been discharged. It is also contended that overdraft facility could not have been attached. A further contention is that due to the attachment of the overdraft facility, business of petitioners has come to a stand still. Learned counsel for first respondent supported the order.