MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. SUMAT CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the order dated 6-8-1988 passed under Order 38 Rule 5 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short the Code), by the Civil Judge, Lalitpur, directing the defendant not to transfer his property till he appears on 1-11-88 and shows cause as to why not the application of the plaintiff respondent for attachment before judgment could be allowed.

(2.) SRI V. S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the impugned order was beyond the scope of Order 38 Rule 5 (3) of the Code and principles of natural justice were violated. Reliance was placed on Vishwanath v. Pirabhunath Misir, 1982 ACJ 119.

(3.) THE elementary rule of interpretation is that it must be textual and contextual. All the provisions of the statute must be considered together and all the sub-sections or sections or rules have also to be read and construed together. In fact, every Chapter or Order of the Code has got a distinct connotation. All the rules of Order 38 appear to be somewhat inter connected. One need not be read in isolation. In brief Rule 1 of Order 38 is that at any stage of the suit if the Court is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that the defendant with intent to delay the plaintiff, or to avoid any process of the court or to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, has neither absconded nor is about to leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court or to dispose of his property or any part thereof, or he is about to leave the country, in such and similar other situations the court may issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance. Rule 2 is that when the defendant fails to show cause, the Court may order him to deposit money and other sufficient property to answer the claim of the plaintiff. Rules 3 and 4 provide procedure on the application by surety to be discharged or where the defendants fail to furnish security. Rule 5 is the procedure for attachment before judgment.