PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. CH SEETHAPATHY RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the Nationalized Bank and is the plaintiff in the trial Court. The plaintiff-Bank filed the suit O.S. No.1278 of 1986 against the defendants and obtained a decree. The plaintiff-Bank obtained an order of attachment dated 3-11-1986 passed in LA. No.1026 of 1986. The third party-claimant filed a claim petition under Order 38 Rule 8 read with Order 21 Rule 58 CPC for raising the attachment. The trial Court after taking into consideration the fact that the third party-claimant purchased the property under Ex.A-1 dated 20-2-1967 long prior to the suit and also relying on Exs.A-4 to A-17 and A-34, held that the property was purchased out of his own funds and accordingly held that the claimant has established that he is the owner and possessor of the schedule property and consequently it was held that the petition schedule property is not liable for attachment. So holding, the trial Court has allowed the petition and raised the order of attachment made in I.A. No.1026 of 1986. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Bank has filed the present appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent has placed the certified copy of the judgment to establish that the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-Bank on 26-2-1986. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank has contended that irrespective of the fact whether the suit is decreed or not, the legal plea raised in this appeal survives and is valid.

(3.) In the light of the rival contentions, it would be necessary to set out in brief the facts leading to the filing of the claim petition.