VIDYA SINGH Vs. PROGRAMME SUPPORT UNIT FOUNDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in these revisions Smt. Vidya Singh is the landlord of a premises in Varanasi, in the tenancy of opposite party M/s. Programme Support Unit Foundation, which is said to have been running a project for health and sanitation in rural areas sponsored and financed by the Dutch Government. A suit for recovery of rent and damages was filed by the applicant against the opposite party in the Court of District Judge. Varanasi exercising power of Small Cause Court alleging that the Dutch Government has cancelled the project on account of which the business of the opposite party has been closed and the opposite party is saddled with liability of paying the salary of its employees apart from rent, etc., due to the applicant. The plaintiff says that apart from moveable properties, which have been mentioned in the plaint in Varanasi and at the Head Office of the Opposite Party at Lucknow, there is no other property available with the opposite party to clear off its dues.

(2.) An application under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, C.P.C., for attachment before judgment of certain movable properties belonging to the opposite party was filed by the plaintiff. Notice was issued to the opposite party but it did not appear to contest the application. However, the Judge, Small Cause Court rejected the application on the ground that all the properties in respect of which attachment had been sought were in the custody of the police of P.S. Lanka, Varanasi, being case property in a criminal case and as such, no order for their attachment could be passed. It is this order, which has been challenged in Civil Revision No. 455 of 2001. After the rejection of her application, a review application was filed by the applicant on the ground that in the application for attachment, certain movable properties (vehicles) belonging to the opposite party lying at the Head Office at Lucknow had also been specified but the Court has failed to consider these properties. The review application was dismissed and against this order, Civil Revision No. 456 of 2001, has been filed by the applicant. As both the revisions raised common questions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) I have heard Shri S.N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties.