DINKAR TIPPANNA MIRAJKAR Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE to delete the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Heard the Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 14th March, 2002 passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to secure the amount of Rs. 2,01,026/- i. e. the suit claim, out of pensionary benefits which he is likely to receive on or after 31-3-2000. The order is stated to have been passed for the purpose of detention and preservation of the amount sufficient to satisfy suit claim. The order is stated to have been passed in terms of the provisions contained in section 94 (c) of C. P. C.

(3.) APPARENTLY, the order has been passed for the purpose of detention and preservation of the amount in order to facilitate the respondent to recover the suit claim in case he succeeds in getting a favourable decree. Undisputedly, the Court is empowered to pass the order for detention, preservation or inspection of any property during the pendency of the suit. However, such power can be in relation to the property, which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit. In other words, the property to be preserved or detained or inspected must be one which is in one way or other related to the matter issue in the suit. This is very clear from the provisions of law under Order 39, Rule 7 of C. P. C. Therefore, such power cannot be exercised in relation to the property which is in no way concerned with the dispute in the matter.