EMERALD INDUSTRIES Vs. NEERAJ PRATIBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for recovery of ? 4,54,16,980/- against the respondents. In the said suit an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code wherein it was prayed that property of respondent No. 1 be attached before judgment. The application was contested by the respondent No. 1 on various grounds. Counter claim was also filed by the respondent No. 1 for recovery of ? 36.26 Crores. After hearing the parties, learned Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is having every apprehension that it is not possible to get the decree executed which will ultimately be passed in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 is based at Mumbai having no immovable property in Indore. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Court below committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision in the matter of Rajendran vs. Shankar Sundaram, 2008 2 MPLJ 495 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that while exercising its jurisdiction under Rule 5 of Order 38 the Court is required to form a prima facie opinion at the stage and need not go into the correctness or otherwise of all the contentions made by the parties. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and impugned order passed by learned Court below be set aside.