M/S. BHAGWAT PARSHAD & COMPANY YAMUNANAGAR Vs. M/S. SUBHASH CHAND GOEL & COMPANY CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 783 of 1976 and 782 of 1976 in both of which the parties are the same and arise out of the same suit relating to the same proceedings for attachment before judgment.

(2.) MR . R.L. Aggarwal, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, has rightly pointed out that though the trial Court has full jurisdiction to accept security so long as the proceedings for attachment before judgment are pending but It has no jurisdiction after culmination of those proceedings in the order of final attachment under Order 38 Rule 6 of the Code to re -open the matter except possibly on an application for review in which case it would be necessary for the court to give notice (of the application) to the plaintiff petitioners before considering the merits of the review application. Counsel for the defendant -respondents has not been able to point out any error in this argument. Agreeing with the argument of the counsel for the petitioners, I hold that the order of the trial Court, dated May 15, 1976, is wholly without jurisdiction because it has been passed at the back of the plaintiff petitioners without any notice to them of the application of the defendant respondents on which the order was passed.

(3.) AT the stage, the counsel for the respondent submits that he now be permitted by this Court to furnish a fresh surety bond to the trial Court so that he may get the attachment released. It is not for this Court to entertain such applications. The defendant -respondents may, if so advised, make a suitable application for appropriate relief to the trial Court. If and when such application is made, the trial Court will have to issue notice thereof to the plaintiff petitioners and it is only after hearing both the sides that the Court below will be able to dispose of the application on merits in accordance with law.