AVINASH CHANDRA TANDON Vs. HARI KRISHNA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 3-2-89 passed on the applications 7/C and 8/C by Sri N. M. Lal, 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Saharanpur, the defendant-applicants (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) have preferred this revision.

(2.) FACTS encompassing the controversy are that the plaintiff-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,188/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the costs of the suit. On the date of the filing of the suit an application under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC was also filed for attachment before judgment. The trial court allowed this application and the properties mentioned in the application were attached before judgment. The rent payable to the opposite party by the State Bank of India, Patiala was also directed to be deposited in court till the disposal of the application. This order was passed when the defendants had not even put in appearance.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has submitted that it seems that the court below is not alive to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and has shown utter disregard in its non-compliance. I find merit in this submission Order 38 Rule 5 CPC postulates as under :-