PUNEET MEHTA Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 151 CPC has been filed against the order dtd. 19/3/2019, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, whereby application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, in a suit for recovery of money, was allowed.

(2.) It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court has wrongly passed the order for attachment of his property before decree. In the suit; to claim the liability of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.1.10 crore to be repaid with interest @ of 18% per annum, reliance of the respondent has been only upon an alleged undertaking dtd. 31/3/2017, wherein the property comprised in G-121, Palam Vihar, Gurugram, measuring 520.26 sq. yards, to the extent of 50%, was quoted as surety. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said document is fabricated and it is not even referred to anywhere in the pleadings of the respondent.

(3.) Therefore, there is no prima facie case in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, the Court below could not have passed order of attachment of property; while exercising powers under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.