JAGJIT CLOTH HOUSE Vs. KALI RAM PARSHOTAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, Sunam, dated 1.4.1991, allowing an application under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 23,080.50 P. alongwith interest. In application for attachment before judgment, under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was averred that defendants No. 5 and 6 have fixed deposits receipts in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- with the Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 22, Chandigarh and since they are going to close down the business, an order be passed attaching the fixed deposits so that their loan amount be secured. The trial Court while placing reliance upon the affidavit of the plaintiff-respondent, ordered the petitioners to give security to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- by 15th April, 1991, failing which the goods in the shop were ordered to be attached.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bawa, has argued that there is no evidence from which it can be concluded that the petitioners are going to close down their business and that the fixed deposits cannot be attached. There is no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The trial Court directed the petitioners to give security in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof the goods lying in the shop of M/s Jagjit Cloth House, Sector 22, Chandigarh, have been ordered to be attached. There is no error of jurisdiction. The order is perfectly within jurisdiction. The fixed deposits have not been attached. Only the goods in the shop have been attached. No oral evidence was required to be led. The affidavit of plaintiff regarding the chances of the business being closed down has rightly been believed. The petitioners have admittedly failed to give security as was directed by the trial Court. Consequently, there being no merit in the revision petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed, with no order as to costs.

(3.) The counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has agreed even today before this Court that if the petitioners give security to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- within a month from today, the goods in the shop be not attached. Consequently, I order that the goods in the shop would be released from attachment in case the security in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- is furnished, within one month from today.