CHARANJIT KAUR Vs. DHANNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above detailed three revision petitions though are arising out of different civil suits but on account of consanguinity of law points can be conveniently disposed off together by way of this common judgment. The facts though are almost akin, but for the decision of the present matter, the factual scenario is extracted from the Civil Suit filed by Dhanna Singh plaintiff against Charanjit Kaur defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff in each case has sought suit for recovery of the principal loan amount along with interest at the agreed rate as well as pendente-lite interest on account of advancement of loan to the defendant (now petitioner) for the purpose of her family business. The plaintiff in each case has set up promissory note and receipt as the basis of filing the suit. It is during the course of pendency of the suits, different applications under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC were filed by the plaintiff in each of the case seeking attachment of the properties of the defendant. The Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh through orders dated 03.12.2018 allowed the applications and directed the defendant to either furnish the security equal to the suit amount within a period detailed in each of the orders and in default of furnishing security the immovable property of the defendant would automatically be attached and would remain under attachment till further orders of the Court. The same is subject matter of challenge in these revisions.

(3.) Heard Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr.G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amitoj Singh, Advocate for the respondent and perused the records.