NEELA BAI AMMAL Vs. KRISHNAVENI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition has to be allowed.

(2.) THE decree -holder is the petitioner. She obtained a decree in the City Civil Court, Madras, in O. S. No. 291 of 1970. But prior to the said decree date, she had filed an application for attachment before judgment of the defendant's property and on 20th January, 1970 such an attachment was ordered, as seen from Exhibit B -4, and was effected on 22nd April, 1970, as seen from Exhibit B -5. The Court can safely presume that the attachment had been effected by reason of the said order. This was followed, as already stated, by the decree on 28th July, 1971. Thereafter, the petitioner, decree -holder sought for a transfer of the decree with the usual certificate of non -satisfaction to the Court of the District Munsif of Poonamallee. This was on 6th November, 1971. After the transfer was so effected of the decree for purposes of executing the decree, the petitioner filed E. P. No. 884 of 1971, in the transferee Court, for attachment of the same property and bringing it to sale pursuant to the money decree obtained by her in the City Civil Court. Necessary orders in the execution petition were issued on 14th December, 1971 and the attachment of the property was made on 16th December, 1971. Thereafter, the respondent, on the foot of a settlement deed effected by her husband (judgment -debtor), of the suit property on 10th June, 1970 filed a claim petition on 7th February, 1972 stating that the property cannot be deemed to be subject to attachment made by the petitioner in the above proceedings, that it ought to be held free from it and that her claim to the property as evidenced by the settlement deed, as above, should be upheld. The lower Court upheld the same. It is against this, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) SRINIVASAN , J., in Kuppuswami v. Rangai Goundan : AIR 1962 Mad 383 , dealing with Order 38, Rules 5 and 11, Civil Procedure Code, observed that when a party suing obtains a decree against the judgment -debtor, having under Rule 5 of Order 38 obtained an attachment of the property of the judgment -debtor before the passing of the decree, such attachment enures in favour of the decree -holder and before bringing the property to sale in execution of the decree it shall not be necessary for him to have the property attached again in the course of execution. This proposition being well -settled, it is for consideration whether the execution petition filed by the decree -holder subsequently in the Court of the District Munsiff of Poonamallee, which is the transferee Court, would in any way lessen the rigour and vigour of the order for attachment before judgment, which had been effected consequent upon the plaintiff obtaining such an order under Order 38, Rule 5. Order 38, Rule 11, is a definite pointer to the effect that such an order cannot in any way be whittled down in any manner whatsoever. This being the legal position, the fact that the decree -holder sought for a second attachment and the executing Court gave such an order for attachment and the property was in consequence attached for a second time on 16th December, 1971 does not in any way thwart the effect of the attachment before judgment obtained by the decree -holder under Order 38, Rule5, which subsists for all time and even for the definite purpose of attaching and selling the property in execution of the decree later obtained by the decree -holder after the order under Order 38, Rule 5, was passed. I am of the view that the attachment made on 16th February, 1971 on the volition of the decree -holder, cannot in any way belittle the statutory -effect of an attachment before judgment, which continues, under Order 38, Rule 11, till the decree is satisfied. The attachment made on 16th December, 1971 pursuant to the order of the executing. Court was redundant and ought to be understood as such. It has no legal impact on the effect and force of the order for attachment before judgment already obtained by the decree holder.