B KESHAVULU NAIDU Vs. L BHASKAR NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to review the order dt: 26-3-93 passed in C.M.P.No.5465 of 1993 on the ground that the order is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.

(2.) The learned Advocate-General appearing for the review petitioner argued that the review petitioner who is the defendant in the suit has denied the execution of the promissory note on behalf of himself and as manager of the joint family; that the said promissory note was concocted at the instance of one Dr. Shyamala Devi and her husband Sri S. Krishnama Naidu, a former Additional Public Prosecutor, Chittoor; that the attachment before judgment was ordered contrary to the provisions of law on 31-12-1992; that the attachment was effected and the attached property was removed and carried away; that when once the third-party security was furnished by the revision petitioner in pursuance of the decision of this court dt: 17-3-1993 in C.R.P.No.783 of 1993 the attachment is raised and, that therefore,the subsequent order in C.M.P.No.5465 of 1993 is illegal and is liable to be reviewed.

(3.) Relying upon a Division Bench decision of our High Court in P. Satyanarayana vs. P. Somasundaram, which held that Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. contemplates of a subsisting attachment at the time of the application and during the proceedings until the order releasing the property from attachment is made and that an application under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. does not lie when once the sale is held, the learned Advocate-General argued that when the attachment in respect of the property seized from the possession of the petitioner has been raised, the alleged claimant has to work out his rights in a suit, but, not in a claim petition and that when once the security is furnished as ordered by this court on 17-3-93 in C.R.P.No.783 of 1993, the attachment does not subsist and, therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge has no right or jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.