UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. MITTERSAIN RUPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present Chamber Summons, which is taken out by the defendants, the defendants have prayed that the Notice of Attachment dated 27th September, 1989 in Execution Application No. 229 of 1989 issued in the above suit and attachment levied pursuant thereto be set aside and/or raised; that the ex parte order dated 9th March, 1990 passed by this Court in Notice No. 119 of 1990 in the above summary suit be set aside and the Garnishee Notice No. 119 of 1990 be restored to file for hearing on merits.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present Chamber Summons are as follows:

(3.) The defendants have, in support of their challenge to the Notice of attachment dated 27th September, 1989, while praying that the same be set aside and/or raised, submitted that the same was not served on the defendants and orders were passed thereon without notice. As far as the order dated 9th March, 1990 in Garnishee Notice No. 119 of 1990 is concerned, it was submitted that although the said order said the defendants were "served", in fact they were not served. On behalf of the plaintiffs, it was submitted that neither the Notice of Attachment or the Garnishee Notice are required to be served and although the said order dated 9th March, 1990 mentions the word "served", no such service was effected nor it is required to be served. Mr. Shah, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, took me through various provisions of the Code and satisfied me that no such notice to the defendants is required. In view thereof, I am not impressed by the submissions advanced on behalf of the defendants.